Saint Joseph of Canada

Patron saints are important. Ireland has Saint Patrick; England has St. George; Scotland has Saint Andrew. The patron saint can become a unifying national symbol, at least as much as can a large rodent or a fallen leaf.

Unfortunately, there is some dispute over who qualifies as Canada’s patron saint. Some say Jean de Brebeuf; some say St. Anne; some say St. Kateri Tekakwitha.

Not to demean any of them, but historically, St. Joseph has the better claim. In the year 1624, at the very beginnings of New France, Franciscan Father Joseph Le Caron reported to his superiors back in Paris that all the settlers and the local Indians in the new colony together took a vow consecrating their country and their church to St. Joseph. This was apparently repeated for some time each year on St. Joseph’s Day, March 19.

It just fits. It just feels right.

Mary, of course, gets all the press. Joseph remains, in comparison to his theoretical importance, very much in the background. This is like Canada: among nations, tending to be modest, unassuming, and generally out of the news.

Joseph was a working man, a carpenter. He fits well therefore with the beaver, a symbol of industry.

Joseph was Jesus’s foster father. This is appropriate for a nation composed primarily of immigrants. Canada is not the original land of our ancestors, but our adopted home.

Joseph has, through his servant Saint Andre Bessette and the miracles the latter worked in the great saint’s name, in effect chosen us. St. Joseph’s Oratory in Montreal is Canada’s largest church, and the world's largest shrine to St. Joseph.

Joseph was a working man, not someone of high rank; often portrayed as “Saint Joseph the Worker.” This fits with a country with no tradition of class, in which we hold everyone to be equal before the law.

Joseph was, specifically, by tradition, a worker in wood. So has Canada been, for most of its history. The lumbering and pulp and paper business have been our largest industry for most of the last two hundred years.

Joseph was, in his local context, a northerner, as are Canadians in the world context, and as of course was Jesus. He was from Nazareth, in Galilee, in the far north of the Jewish lands of his day.

Galilee, Joseph’s homeland, was a multicultural area, an area of immigrants, like Canada. It was known in ancient times as “Galilee of the Nations.”

By luck or synchronicity, the name “Joseph” is perfectly bilingual, exactly the same in both official languages.

Joseph is a model of tolerance, which is a typical Canadian value. His most significant act in the Gospels is to refuse to divorce Mary when he learns she is pregnant, knowing he cannot be the natural father.

St. Joseph’s feast day, March 19, is at a perfect time for a northern nation with cold winters: like St. Patrick’s Day just before it, it can be a celebration after the long winter of the coming spring. It comes at a time when we all could use a holiday, after a long stretch without one.

It doesn't hurt, to my mind, that our patron saint rather outranks that of England, Ireland, Scotland, or France. It also doesn't hurt, speaking as an Irishman, that St. Joseph's Day comes just two days after Saint Patrick's Day. I like the idea of a three-day celebration, and it rather reflects the significance of the Irish contribution to Canada.

Accordingly, I hereby call upon all fellow Canadians, at home and abroad, to begin this year formally celebrating the Feast of St. Joseph as a national feast day, at least in our own homes. Set it aside as a day to prepare traditional Canadian food, parade down King Street with an icon of St. Joseph, wearing mukluks, ceinture flechee and a touque, and raise a toast with rye and ginger ale.

Hands Off Our Solstice!

Los Angeles's celebrated Kwanzaa parade, 2014. From Newsbusters.

Is Christmas really a makeover of a pagan holiday?

Everybody now seems to think so. It is an element of conventional wisdom. I’ve written myself, years ago for the Toronto Star, that it is, but now I have my doubts.

First, there is actually good reason to believe that Jesus was born on or about December 25. Count back nine months. You get March 25. What is March 25? The Feast of the Annunciation. That is, it commemorates the conception of Jesus. Nine months—a reasonable period for a pregnancy.

The time of the Annunciation can in turn be dated, from scriptural references, to six months after the conception of John the Baptist. And the conception of John the Baptist can be dated, by scriptural references, to the Jewish New Year. Which happens on or about the autumnal equinox, or on or about September 25.

So no, it ain’t random or unscriptural. Estimated, maybe.

It is true that there was a Roman holiday, the Saturnalia, which took place from the 17th to the 23rd of December, just before Christmas. Fine; no doubt some traditions have crossed over. But that’s a problem, actually. The usual claim is that Christmas was dated as it was to correspond with Saturnalia, so as not to attract attention to the Christian feast. But Saturnalia ends before Christmas begins, and both run for a number of days. No cover at all. And while the Roman version of the feast, Saturnalia, was held in December, the Greek version of the holiday, the Kronia, was held in July-August. So even if Saturnalia in Rome did take place at the same time as Christmas, it would have been little cover for half the Christian world, which lived in the Greek-speaking East of the Empire.

Both Saturnalia and Christmas seem to owe something to the symbolism of the winter solstice—the rebirth of the light in the heavens. Fair enough—but the winter solstice is the common experience of mankind, not something of special interest to pagans. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the light"; surely the symbolism is obvious. Pagans everywhere actually seem to have taken much less notice of the winter solstice than Christians do. The original Roman New Year was closer to the spring equinox, in what is now March. It crept back to modern January only in the time of Christ, not because that time of year was now especially significant to the Romans, but to fit in two extra months in honour of emperors. In Northern Europe, the pagan New Year was, like the Jewish High Holidays, in autumn. The Hindu New Year is in April; the Chinese New Year is in late January or early February, halfway between solstice and equinox. The closest Western equivalent would be Groundhog Day.

Not an elf -- St. Nicholas of Myra.

The solstices and equinoxes in general are more important in the Christian calendar than in the various pagan ones. The Christian Gregorian/Julian calendar is uniquely solar, so that the solstices and equinoxes will fall on the same date every year. Everyone else’s calendar seems to be either lunar or lunar-solar, so that equinoxes and solstices are not tracked directly, and are harder to determine.

People why try to avoid the Christianity of Christmas by wishing “Happy Hanukkah,” or “Happy Kwanzaa,” or “Happy Diwali,” or indeed “Happy Solstice,” as if the holiday were not really Christian but shared, are simply a delusion to themselves and others. Hanukkah, unlike Christmas, is resolutely a second-tier Jewish holiday, not mentioned in the Talmud. Much of its current popularity can be traced to a modern tendency—largely since the 1970s--to promote it as a Jewish alternative to Christmas. Kwanzaa was invented out of whole cloth in 1965, and has never really been more than a minority interest even within the black community in the US. Diwali is a harvest festival which corresponds closely to the date of Hallowe'en. Only the Christians really make a big fuss over the winter solstice.

Merry Christmas. Deal with it.

The Future Foreseen

A weather machine clearing cloud cover in the year 2000.

Predictions are usually wrong. Predictions by experts generally do worse than random chance. "Futurists" are the worst of all.

So, of course, here are my predictions for the new year.

The world economy will be back on track this year, thanks to fracking. We are at the beginning of a boom. The US, in particular, will do very well.

Private flying machines in the year 2000.

Conversely, traditional oil suppliers will be doing less well. This won’t matter much in the Gulf, where supplies are large and accessible, and the governments have built in a cushion. Low oil prices will not reignite the Arab Spring. The results of that movement have been disappointing, so young Arabs are unlikely to try it soon again. It will matter a lot in Russia, Iran, and Venezuela. These three governments have already looked shaky. Any one of them, or all, may fall this year. Cuba, dependent on Venezuela, is also vulnerable.

The odds of the government of China falling go down with the lower cost of oil; on the other hand, the protests in Hong Kong continue, and they carry a grave risk of contagion.

Now that the world is awake to the threat of ISIS, I do not expect them to be able to make any further headway. They will be slowly beaten back over the next year. This means too that the government of Syria probably will not fall.

Underwater tour bus in the year 2000.

The free trade deal between Canada and the EU almost necessitates a similar deal between the US and the EU. I don’t know what stage those negotiations are at. When it comes—soon—it will be a big boost to the world’s economy.

With the death of Steve Jobs, Google has established itself as the clear leader in high-tech. It should continue to rise in prominence and profitability.

I get the idea that we are very close to some breakthroughs in life extension. Something may break this year.

We are also close to a sudden drop in health care costs. It is a closely-held secret, but the fact is, computer software is now better at diagnosing illnesses than are human MDs. MDs are fantastically expensive, and there is no more justification for using them, but for surgeons. This will be bad news for the medical profession, of course, but good news for everyone else.

Education costs should also soon nosedive. We now know that online education outperforms the classroom model; and, again, it is exponentially cheaper.

Amphibious ship-train in the year 2000.

Nothing to Sneeze At

A Muslim colleague recently told me that, in the US, a school has been successfully sued by a parent because a student sneezed and a teacher said “God bless you.”

As far as I can tell in an Internet search, this story is not true. But Americans, Canadians, and Europeans should be aware of how this sort of “freedom from religion” thing plays in the Middle East and elsewhere. 

First, it is likely to be exaggerated, as here, in the retelling. 

Second, it is going to reinforce the general view that the West is utterly Godless, immoral, and anti-religious. "The Wicked West," they call it. 

Third, more folks are going to sign up for ISIL/ISIS, the Taliban, or for terror bombing, and feel thoroughly righteous about it.

Social Scientists Discover Water Runs Downhill!

From the Depasrtment of the Painfully Obvious: social conformists are weak on morality.

This is close to self-evident. If you listen to your conscience, you will often be at odds with those around you. If you always go along weith those around you, you will often be at odds with your conscience.

This points up one fuundamental flaw with social science: it thinks being "normal" is the goal of life.

The Problem with Our Schools

Why are our schools bad and getting worse?

1. Bullies seek power. That is, they seek situations in which they can exercise power over others. This should be self-evident.
2. As a general rule, people enjoy doing what they are good at. They do not enjoy doing what they are not good at. This should also be self-evident.
3. By its nature, teaching as a job is going to attract bullies. It offers the chance to micromanage the lives of a room full of powerless victims. Not to mention sexual issues.
4. As we do not acknowledge this problem, we have no structures in place to prevent it. A huge proportion of teachers are natural bullies.
5. Once they are in the teaching field, bullies will gravitate to administration. This gives greater power, so greater opportunity for their favourite pastime. This is a general problem in all organizations, but is worse in teaching because the initial pool of bullies is much larger.
6. Bad teachers will also be more likely to gravitate to administration, for reason 2, above.
7. Therefore, educational administration will be primarily composed of the worst teachers and the worst bullies.
8. We currently evaluate teaching quality at the elementary and high school level entirely or almost entirely by classroom observations.
9. Those doing the classroom observations are these administrators.
10. We know from many studies that classroom observations are not, in fact, objectively valid measures of teaching quality. What happens, inevitably, is just what common sense would suggest: evaluators reward those teaching the same way they would.
11. The sole advantage of classroom observations are that they give total control, which is to say, total power, to the administrator. That they are used everywhere is a measure of how bad our problem is with bullies in administration.
12. Given this system, we have the worst teachers evaluating all others, rewarding them for teaching badly, and punishing them for teaching well.
13. Bullying behavior will also be encouraged and rewarded.
14. Because they care about what they do, and about the students, the best teachers will be the most easily bullied.
15. Given this system, over time, the teaching quality will inevitably get worse and worse, as even marginally good teachers are thrown out of the schools.

How do we fix this?

1. Fire them all. Harsh, but necessary.
2. Hire all new teachers, avoiding anyone who has previously taught in the public schools or attended ed school. 
3. Have teacher performance evaluated by surveys of parents and students. 
4. Have all administrators elected, either by the teachers or by the local parents.

How do we fix this?

1. Fire them all.

2. Hire all new teachers, avoiding anyone who has previously taught in the public schools or attended ed school.

3. Have their performance evaluated by surveys of parents and students.



4. Have all administrators elected, either by the teachers or by the local parents.

Evil May Not Be Banal, But It Is Certainly Dumb

Vladimir Putin now seems to have made a bad miscalculation in invading the Ukraine. Fracking is now rapidly driving down oil prices, taking away both his political leverage and his income. Because he has alienated almost everybody, there will be no bailout package, unless perhaps from China. Because everyone knows this, the run on the currency and the economy is that much more terrible.

Did anyone else notice that his face looked very puffy in his recent press conference? I suspect Putin's health is suffering from the stress. He must know his head is on the block.

But how was he so stupid as to get himself into this situation? It's not as though the effects of fracking were not inevitable and predictable a few years ago. Yet he chose to alienate everyone at just the wrong moment.

In related news, fracking is probably also why Cuba and the US are suddenly reopening relations. The lower oil price is killing Venezuelan government finances, already in grievous shape. Venezuela had been subsidizing Cuba, saving it from a desperate fate after the collapse of its Soviet sponsors. Now Venezuela in turn is forced to stop doing this. So Cuba is probably obliged to make some deal the US before the bottom falls out, in hopes of ending the embargo and boosting their economy. Perhaps even for the sake of having a basket for their case to fall into. The shocking thing is that Obama got so little in the negotiations at this point.

Iran will surely soon also show the strain. Just at a time they too have alienated everyone with their nuclear programme.

At the same time, cheaper oil is bound to boost the US, first of all, and the developed West generally.

It seems almost like supernatural aid, doesn't it? God suddenly drops a miracle in the US's lap, like when the Berlin Wall suddenly fell.

That may be so, but a simpler explanation is simply that evil, and evil people, are also necessarily stupid. Because they are stupid, they are always playing the short game, unable to calculate things very far forward, so that over time they are guaranteed to lose. An obvious example was Saddam's fight to the death in Iraq to protect a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction that it turned out he mostly did not have. He probably genuinely believed he had them. Dictators who rule by fear and corruption necessarily become sourrounded by people who will never tell them the truth, but only what they think they want to hear, and what they think will be to their own personal benefit.

North Korea's cyber attack on Sony falls into the same category: “B” for “boneheaded.” For no material gain, they have revealed their current cyber sabotage capabilities and alerted the US public to the threat. This guarantees that Western defences will be good and solid if and when it really matters to North Korea. And rather than blow their cover while accomplishinng nothing, they have probably accomplished the very thing they wanted to prevent. Virtually everyone in the West is now dying to see “The Interview,” it has had the best free publicity campaign a movie could ever get, and even if Sony is too crazy to release it on DVD, North Korea has effectively laid down a challenge to all hackers everywhere to ensure that it is indeed widely seen by any means necessary.

Long-term, does North Korea believe it can really win a hackers' war against the US?

Clearly, there is no long-term thinking involved.

Everywhere and always, the devil has the tactical advantage. Everywhere and always, St. Michael and the angels have the strategic advantage.

Jeb Is In

It looks as if Jeb Bush has decided to run. This immediately makes him the favourite for the Republican nomination. I hold to my prediction from before: the Republican nominee will not be Chris Christie, and the Democratic nominee will not be Hillary Clinton.

I also expect Mitt Romney to run, and I think he has a good shot. Here's why: Bush apparently plans to run to the centre, so t hat he can have a better shot in the general election. This could work, because the right looks fragmented: Cruz, Paul, Rubio. Still, Bush runs a serious risk of losing the nomination to some firebrand to the right. Solution: Mitt Romney enters and runs to the right, as he did in 2008. As worst, this further fragments the right. But this also provides the establishment with a backup plan, if the right will not sit still for another centrist run. And if Romney loses to Bush, he becomes an ideal establishment VP pick, so as to pacify the right.

Lay Off Joni Mitchell

People are getting on Joni Mitchell’s case now. I wish they would stop. One of the great things about Canadians used to be that they did not devour their heroes. They just ignored them. Better that than the ugly dance of envy, pulling people down because they can do things you can’t.

No doubt Mitchell should stop giving interviews. But she is not responsible for the harshness of her comments. She is fighting a life and death struggle against the forces of darkness that the rest of us can only imagine.

For decades, she says, she has been suffering from Morgellones Disease. The evidence suggests that this is a mental illness rather than a physical condition. No matter; it involves constant pain, as if there were little bugs always moving under your skin. On top of this, she admits to bouts of extreme paranoia.

Who in the world would not be irritable?

This is the kind of price commonly paid for the kind of talent Joni has. Remember Robin Williams a few months ago? You don’t do that stuff without intimate contact with the spirit world. And there are things in the spirit world more terrible as well as more wonderful than anything out of doors.

Why China Won't Fall Apart?

David P. “Spengler” Goldman, who qualifies as a China Hand, says the Chinese government is not about to fall apart. He gives two reasons:

1. China is in the middle of a golden age, and
2. China has no tradition of democracy to look back on. 

These are differences between China and Eastern Europe in the late 1980s. But his focus is far too narrow. It does not follow that China's government is secure.

It is not economic decline that causes revolutions or dissatisfaction with government. In a really good stiff decline, everyone is too busy just trying to survive. Governments collapse more often when a period of generally rising expectations rather suddenly hits a disappointment. For example, Russia in 1911 was roughly where China is today: growing at a faster rate than anyone else, and on the verge of taking its position as a world leader. Germany pushed the world into the Great War primarily because it feared Russia and calculated that if it waited only a few years more, Russia would be too strong and would begin to dominate.

The collapse of the Russian government came six years later.

England was in a similar position in the middle of the nineteenth century. She was economically dominant, and the Industrial Revolution was causing a general rise in prosperity. Yet it was right in the middle of this that she faced the Chartist revolt, which came close at least to bringing down the government.

The French Revolution, the American Revolution: these were not economic backwaters, but strong and wealthy states at the time of their revolutions. The French Revolution was preceded by the Sun King and followed by Napoleon—surely the Golden Age for France.

Second point: since democracy is not the only alternative here, not having a tradition of democracy is also not very relevant. It was not a general hankering for democracy that caused the fall of the Qing Dynasty either. Or the Ming Dynasty, or the Yuan Dynasty, or the Tang Dynasty, or the Sung Dynasty, or the Xin Dynasty, or the Qin Dynasty, or the Shang Dynasty ... perhaps you begin to see a pattern here.

Are Women Harassed More than Men on the Internet?

No.

Try That Again with a Hijab.

Someone has done it! The catcalling video experiment, again in New York City, with and without a hijab. The hijab neatly and easily solves the problem, as I expected. This is one good reason why it is growing in popularity throughout the Middle East.

Note too that, if the men meant any harm, the jijab should make no difference.

Kiwis Do Not Call Cats

Interesting to note that the first known attempt, above, to reproduce the experiment in the New York cat-calling video has proven a failure.

The explanation advanced by the New Zealand press, naturally enough, is that Aucklanders are simply more decorous and polite than New Yorkers. This may well be so. Almost all of the men in the original video who were so forward and cruel as to wish the passing woman a nice day were apparently either black or Hispanic; there may be a relative shortage of blacks and Hispanics in New Zealand's North Island. 

I once lived in a black neighbourhood in the US, and enjoyed the general tendency to greet strangers in the street. Old women would pass me and ask “how you percolating, boy?” I enjoyed living in a Portuguese neighbourhood in Toronto for the same reason. Some women, for whatever reason, perhaps an innate hatred or fear of men, may not like it so much. Anglo neighbourhoods tend to be a bit more emotionally isolationist, in my experience, and New Zealand may be one big Anglo neighbourhood, in comparison to New York.

But I note something else, which I suspect is crucial. This New Zealand women, although I think she is objectively more attractive than the New York walker, is not employing the latter's so-called “neutral” expression—the faint scowl and the refusal of eye contact. She is interacting normally with her environment.

You want people to try and get your attention, I'd say that New York zombie walk is a good way to do it.

I really do hope others try to repeat the experiment.

The War of 1812 Memorial on Parliament Hill

War of 1812 Memorial, photo courtesy Ottawa Citizen. Left to right: Indian warrior, Canadian militiaman, Newfoundland Fencible, Canadian Voltigeur, Metis cannoneer.

I suppose all nations falsify their histories. It is just more embarrassing to see one's own country do it.

I refer to the new monument to the War of 1812 unveiled on Parliament Hill, “Trial through Diversity.”

The title is already a bad sign, isn't it? Diversity is a big current political value. Does it really apply to the War of 1812, or are we snuggling up together in a Procrustean Bed?

So in the present statue, unveiled to mark the 200th anniversary of the last shot on Canadian soil, we have seven semi-symbolic figures, supposed together to express the “diversity” so important for the defence of Canada in 1812. There are both significant omissions from and additions to the historical record here. Both smell bad.

Most notable is the absence of the British Army. As in, the main force involved. Granted, the Royal Navy is here, as it ought to be. And supposedly, the British Army is represented by the Royal Newfoundland Fencibles. The Royal Newfoundlanders, as a unit, are deserving of recognition; and one can see the political need to include the Atlantic Provinces in the display. But this was not a British formation; it was a locally-raised militia force. And its successor unit is a part of the Canadian, not the British, forces.

No doubt the Canadian government sees no political capital to be gained by honouring a foreign army. But this is ungracious, and, in the end, unnecessary. In fact, a huge proportion of the British soldiery who served in Canada in 1812 ended up staying and settling here, so that their descendants are indeed Canadians.

The second omission is the native contribution. Granted, there is a native figure included, but he is inaccurately posed. He is not shown with a weapon, but pointing the way—as if the native contribution was primarily the job of scouting. The faithful Indian sidekick, like Tonto and the Lone Ranger. This amounts to a radical devaluation in comparison to the reality, which is that native arms under Tecumseh, the Six Nations, and the Mohawks if the St. Lawrence were crucial to the entire affair. It is rather as if a British soldier were portrayed as unarmed and pointing the way for an American GI to commemorate the Second World War. Would that convey a true picture?

Now for the odd additions: the most egregious, and most political, is the woman bandaging the hand of a Voltigeur. Of course, to appease the feminist lobby, they had to work in a woman somehow. They figured they could not credibly pretend that women were fighting, so they threw in a nurse. There must have been nurses, right? Unfortunately for them, it being a long time before Florence Nightingale, there weren't. Each outfit was accompanied by a surgeon for the succor of the wounded; who was, of course, always male.

Then there is the odd anachronism of a Metis firing a cannon. Technically speaking, there must have been a reasonable number of “Metis,” that is, people of mixed European and Indian ancestry, fighting in the war. But they would not, at this period, have thought of themselves as Metis. That concept, and that distinct culture, emerged later, on the Prairies. At this time, they would have been considered, and would have seen themselves as, either French Canadian, English Canadian, or Mohawk, Wyandote, Ojibway. The “Metis” cannoneer has been thrown in for the sake of the historical illusion that Western Canada was somehow involved in the conflict.

To my mind, it demeans the heroes actually involved in the conflict to ignore some of their closest comrades, and then to make them share their honours with strangers who were not there.

Perhaps the larger problem is the idea of putting up statues to groups of people rather than to individuals. This, after all, is the sort of thing that characterizes totalitarian regimes, and perhaps there is a reason for that: lusty, smiling peasants raising their sickles in unison. It encourages groupthink, and represses ideas of individuality. That makes people easier to manage. Because the figures being portrayed are fictional to begin with, their characters and imaginary deeds can be manipulated freely by the powers that be to suit their present needs, and no real deeds or actual characters can be cited to serve as a check on their actions. It becomes so inconvenient, for example, to have someone point out that Martin Luther King was actually against racial preferences.

Secord warns FitzGibbon of the American advance at Beaver Dam.

If you really want to celebrate the female contribution to the War of 1812, you could, of course, put up a statue of Laura Secord. What is wrong with Laura Secord, but that her real life and real views might come in conflict with the needs of modern feminism? To celebrate the native contribution, why not a statue of Tecumseh? To celebrate the British regular, there was a chap named Sir Isaac Brock some of you may have heard about—not to mention sadly underappreciated but admirable working-class soldiers like James FitzGibbon. Unfortunately, FitzGibbon had the bad taste not to die young, so that he left many known opinions behind him.

Tecumseh. More than just a handy index finger.

Real people, even when long dead, are so much more difficult than fictional cartoon corporate images to mold to current political ends.

Nothing to See Here

No, it was not "Canada's 9/11." No, the system did not break down. It was no big deal, and the security worked about as well as could be hoped.

Bottom line, it was only one guy, and he only managed to kill one guy. By shooting him in the back. You can never prevent that sort of thing.

Enough with the sensationalism and melodrama.

The Empress Has No Clothes

There has been a lot of coverage of this video of a woman walking the streets of New York City over the past few days.

However, while all the headlines I see are declaring it evidence of the terrible problem of harassment faced by women, virtually all of the comments by readers, male and female, are saying it shows no such thing. This amounts to a graphic example of how the “legacy media” have lost touch with, and lost the confidence of, their audience.

I have to agree with the commentators. With the exception of one guy who walks beside the woman for an alleged five minutes, nothing else here seems to come anywhere near harassment. It is mostly a matter of men saying “good morning” or “God bless you,” or at worst, something along the lines of “you're beautiful.” How can this woman possibly take offence? If this is harassment, wouldn't we all like to be a bit more harassed?

Okay, conceivably, for a beautiful woman, this might end up being too much of a good thing. Might it get draining after a while?

Perhaps; the video makers, a feminist advocacy group, do their best to make this look to be the case. But it is worth remembering that this is, by their own admission, a condensation of ten hours of walking. At one point, someone says "good morning," and in the very next shot, it is night. Although the makers claim the woman was harassed “108” times, the video actually shows only twenty incidents of any kind, benevolent or not. Given that they are an advocacy group and not a neutral party, one assumes that, had they anything else that looked even remotely like harassment, we would be looking at it.

So we are left with twenty unsolicited comments over ten hours. That's two random greetings per hous. I think most of us could live with that. If we have ever lived in a small town, we have lived with that, and more. In terms of time, she was obliged to recognize the existence of other people for two minutes (seven, perhaps, if you count the guy who allegedly walks with her for five minutes) out of ten hours. This does not seem like an unsupportable burden. If you think this is tough, try, as a European-looking person, walking the streets of China or Korea. Indeed, some commentators have wondered why all but one of the alleged "harassers" turn out to be non-white, and accuse the video, illogically, of "racism" as a result. Might it be that in Harlem or Spanish Harlem, a young European woman walking alone has a bit of novelty value?

Two unsolicited greetinga an hour certainly does not seem enough to excuse the rudeness of the woman's own behaviour in refusing to acknowledge or make eye contact with anyone. Indeed, I suspect this posture of being itself provocative. It is like a challenge to atttract her attention in some way. I imagine she would have gotten more peace and quiet without it.

But let's suppose this sort of thing really is a problem. How do we solve it? By trying to have the ppolice arrest any man who tries to talk to a stsange woman? Completely impractical, in the first place. In the second, it would mean the extinction of the species, which does seem a bit like overkill.

On the other hand, if any woman does find this kind of thing objectionable in any way, there is a simple and readily available solution: the abaya. This is no doubt why the abaya is growing in popularity among Muslim women everywhere. No fuss, no bother--just slip it on before you go out, and you become invisible. The moment you are in the mood for attention, slip it off and fold in into your purse. If you do not want to look specifically Muslim, a traditional Amish-style dress and a mantilla would probably work just as well. Do you imagine that nuns get harassed in this way? I doubt it.

There is a reason for such traditions as the abaya, or the old Korean one of women staying inside during the day, and men staying inside at night. It is feminism which has insisted and still insists on abolishing all of them. If feminist do not like the result, they have only themselves to blame. It is perverse to blame men.

The men would, of course, harass nuns as well, if they truly had any conceivable sort of ill intention. They do not. It is simply a matter of their being unable to read a woman's mind. Consider: you are a young woman walking alone down the street. Unless your dress says clearly something different, this implies that you are single and eligible. It is the obligation of the man to make the first approach . In those cases when they are not simply being friendly, and with the single exception of the creey stalker guy, that is all these men are doing.

Of course, the reason why most American women do not wear an abaya or its equivalent is that they do in fact want to be approached by men, and indeed at any time. The problem is that they want to be approached only by men whom they find attractive and desirable. 

Unfortunately, however, as noted, men cannot read minds, any more than women can. These guys do not know in advance whether this woman will find them attractive. 

Some--essentially, the people in the legacy media--seem to have become so blinded by ideology that they cannot see any innocent explanation for the events in the video. All men must be presumed to be monsters, and anything they do must be sinister. They are all rapists and pedophiles. No doubt some women who have survived the sexual revolution have been damaged by sexual traumas, and have extrapolated this into a hatred of all men. That may, it occurs to me, be a major element of the feminist world-view. Sure sounds like what happened to Andrea Dworkin. But if so, they are completely unjustified. Feminists were in the forefront of the sexual revolution as much as anyone, and they refuse as much as anyone to withdraw their endorsement of it now. They have kicked down all the old channels of communication and of goodwill between men and women, and need not now be surprised if confusion and mixed messages are the result. 

It may be, too, that the media folks are as aware as their readers and viewers that there is nothing to see here. But they dare not say it, for fear of being accused of being sexist, not to mention losing their job or worse.

 But the ordinary readers, who have the option generally of remaining anonymous in their comments, or at least have less invested in being part of the establishment, have no such qualms.

The whispering has begun in the back rows: the Empress actually has no clothes.






I am beginning to get the definite feeling that feminism is finally on the way out.

The Legacy Media Lose Their Heads

A Yeoman of the Guard

I could barely believe my ears when I heard an interviewer and an interviewee on CNN agree that the US was guilty of “hypocrisy” for objecting to ISIS's practice of beheading hostages while Saudi Arabia, an American ally, was beheading people. Then I did a quick web search, and discovered that the Globe and Mail, Newsweek, and other legacy media were making exactly the same accusation.

How could CNN have become so depraved? This, after all, was seeing a moral equivalence between murder and capital punishment. Criminals executed in Saudi Arabia have been convicted of capital crimes in a court of law, with rather stringent evidentiary requirements. The hostages killed by ISIS were innocent people being killed because of their ethnic background.

Presumably, this has to do with a prejudice against beheading as a form of execution. If so, that id all it is—pure prejudice. Logically, a good quick beheading is probably the most painless form of execution we can manage. All the evidence suggests it is less painful than lethal injection, as practiced in the US. Traditionally, in England, the common people were executed by hanging; nobles had the right to be executed by beheading. This was, of course, because it was believed to be less painful. So long, that is, as the executioner is an experienced professional.

Hanging, drawing and quartering was on the statute books in the United Kingdom until 1814. For crimes such as being Catholic.

Saudi Arabia also is being faulted by some of these sources for performing its executions in public. We in the West now consider this in bad taste, but there are good arguments for it. If an unpopular government executes a political opponent in public, it risks triggering a general uprising. Accordingly, in the old days, it was a matter of honesty and honour for the government to execute only in public, to demonstrate that everything was above board. Bad governments tortured and executed in the dark. That Saudi Arabia executes only in public is, in the end, a guarantee of honest government and Saudi freedom.

Was Hitler Catholic?

No introduction necessary

There is a rumour going around that Hitler was Catholic. But then, there is a rumour going around that he was Jewish, and another that the Holocaust never really happened.

It is true that Hitler was baptized and confirmed as a Catholic. His mother, after all, was Catholic, though his father seems to have been atheist.

His later public statements can also be quoted to imply some sort of theistic faith.

But there is, in the end, conclusive proof that he was not Catholic:

1. As an adult, he never attended mass or took the sacraments. That would have meant automatic self-excommunication after one year. 
2. In the early 1830's, the German bishops excommunicated everyone who joined the Nazi Party, or even flew the Nazi flag. At this time, Hitler was the leader of the Nazi Party. Accordingly, he was publicly excommunicated. He made no effort after this to reconcile with the church. 
3. The official doctrine of the Nazi Party was paganism. This was by Hitler's choice: he appointed Alfred Rosenberg as official party ideologue, and Rosenberg was a vocal anti-Catholic. 
4. Hitler's plans for a postwar new German capital allowed no churches. 
5. Hitler actively persecuted the church when in power. Wikipedia gives chapter and verse. 
6. While his public statements are unclear—he speaks often of “divine providence”--Hitler's private conversation seems to have been resolutely anti-Catholic. Many of his actual comments are preserved in Hitler's Table Talk. Speer, Shirer, Goering, Goebbels all understood him to be anti-Catholic. Hitler was a politician, and a completely unscrupulous one. His public statements were calculated for political advantage. His private talk reveals his true views. 
7. Hitler killed himself, without taking last rites, and had his body burned. All three acts were against church teaching and would, in the mind of a believing Catholic, have guaranteed him a warm reception in Hell. It follows that he cannot have been a Catholic at the time of his death.

The Rat Race

A yuppie's vision of escaping the rat race.

Today, the term “rat race” came up in a lesson. A bit of a jog to the memory. You used, I think, to hear it a lot more in the 60s. That was what the 60s were all about, really: the idea of “escaping the rat race.” Back to the land, and all that. “I’ll never take any nine-to-five job”; “plastics”—remember?

That was before we all “sold out,” of course.

What exactly is a “rat race,” though? And what’s the problem with it? Why was the image so horrifying?

According to Wikipedia—and I think this is right—the idiom refers to a lab rat “running around a maze or in a wheel.” As Paul Simon wrote in the 60s, in one of his less original moments, “Like a rat/In a maze/The path before me lies./And the pattern never alters/Until/The rat dies.”

I think the maze allusion is also and necessarily a reference to behaviourism. Who else put rats in mazes? In the 60s, this was the dominant concept of psychology and education. If “the rat race” is a less common image now, it is because the behaviourists have now followed the social Darwinists and the young earthers into the dustbin of academic history. This has made the image lose a lot of its resonance. We may have lost touch with the original meaning as a result.

It came up in a lesson on “Stress.” “The rat race” supposedly speaks to the stresses of modern life.

I think that is right. But why? Ironically, BF Skinner and the behaviourists, in their experiments with rats, were in part trying to reduce the stresses of life. In Skinner’s imaginary “Walden Two,” “happiness of the citizens is far in advance of that in the outside world because of their practice of scientific social planning and use of operant conditioning in the raising of children.” Sounds good when you put it that way. But we all, at the time, took a very different message from the image of the struggling rat. Why? What does the rat in the maze have to do with stress?

The current lesson explains more specifically that “the rat race” means working too hard. It means a lack of “work-life balance.” A lot of “yuppies” seem to have had the same idea, and resolved the dilemma of the Sixties simply by taking longer vacations. But that is not actually implied in the original rat race in any way. In an exercise wheel, the rat is free to go as slowly as he likes. He is also free to spend as much time with his family as he likes. In fact, for the rat, the wheel is itself entirely recreational—like all that jogging the yuppies love to do. In the maze analogy, a rat race could be any particular degree of challenging. Mazes can be hard or easy. Skinner and the behaviourists wanted it all to be carefully calibrated not to be too easy or too difficult. They were not interested in exhausting the rats. What would be the point of that?

So it’s not really about working too hard.

Another interpretation of the “rat race,” given in the lesson, is that modern life is too competitive. That’s the Marxist takeaway from the 60s, I guess. But this does not work either, for the original image. The rat on the exercise wheel is competing with no one. And in the lab, nobody races rats competitively. And Skinner and the behaviourists actually themselves condemned competitiveness. Conversely, if competition was the problem, why is there no negative connotation to the term “a horse race”?

So let’s consider another possibility: is the problem with the rate race a lack of control? That does seem in some ways to work. Certainly for Skinner and the behaviourists, it was all about controlling the rat, in defiance, as he himself put it, of any concept of “freedom and dignity.” That really ought to make us gag, and some folks seem to have taken that as the lesson of the “rat race.” That’s the Libertarian takeaway from the 60s. But that doesn’t quite fit either. The rat on his wheel is actually in complete control, if he only realizes it. While the shadowy scientists are trying to control the maze rat, from his own perspective, he seems to be in complete control. If one wanted a clear image of loss of control, that would be the simple cage, not the maze or the exercise wheel.

On any sober analysis, the idea of control was always wrong, and we always knew it. As Pogo put it, “we have met the enemy, and he is us.” “The Prisoner,” that essential intellectual product of the 60s, came to the same conclusion: number 1 turned out to be number 6 himself. The people who are loudest in their opposition to “the establishment” are invariably teachers, professors, lawyers, and politicians—the establishment personified. As they move up the ladder, and do not encounter the enemy, their paranoia only grows: obviously, if it is not yet apparent, this conspiracy is much bigger, better concealed, and more powerful than they could ever have imagined.

Which it is, in a certain sense. It is closer to them than their jugular vein.

Boredom also looks like a part of the problem: a rat running in a wheel looks as if he is bored, and behaviourist mazes are repetitive. But that is not a perfect hit either. To the rat, running in the wheel is probably not boring. It is fun, or he would not do it. Similarly, the operant conditioning boxes are probably relatively challenging if you are a rat.

Nah; the problem with being a rat in an exercise wheel is that you are not getting anywhere. The essence of a maze is the dead end.

In other words, the problem with modern life, that we felt so keenly in the Sixties, and that made the image of the “rat race” so compelling to us then, was meaninglessness, pointlessness.

This fits was a general critique of behaviourism: it held that humans had no free will, were just little machines. There was no question of moral choice or of transcendence. We were just reacting to stimuli, seeking material rewards and avoiding punishments. In which case, of course, there is no meaning to life.

I maintain that the sense of a lack of meaning is also the core experience of depression. The lack of meaning in modern life is why rates of depression have risen steadily since the Second World War. Nothing is a better image of the experience of depression than the rat on a wheel, or in the maze.

So what is the solution? How does one really escape this “rat race”? Drugs were the preferred method in the day. LSD was an obvious if wrongheaded search for meaning. The proper response and ancient prescription is religion: worship. Worth-ship—being able to discern and discriminate where true worth, which is to say meaning, lies.

It was the Jesus Freaks, the Moonies, and the Hare Krishnas who got the Sixties right. For the rest of us, it was just a tragically missed opportunity.

Why Are There No Women on Canadian Currency???

The Famous Five posing with some local dignitary.

The world is indeed mad. Apparently, ever since 2011, there has been a petition campaign demanding that women be featured on Canadian banknotes.

The latest CBC headline has it that “Bank of Canada still not committed to women on currency.” Still? They are obviously fighting the inevitable. Another current headline: “Petition asks, Where's [sic] the Canadian women on our money?” Earlier stories were: “Margaret Atwood backs petition calling for women on bank notes.” “BOC chief 'absolutely open' to putting women on Canadian bank notes.”

From all this, a foreigner might be excused for thinking there were no women on the Canadian currency. I can assure them all that, contrary to apparent popular belief within Canada, Queen Elizabeth is a woman. She is on the $20, as well as on all coins. In fact, therefore, there are more female than male faces on Canada's currency.

Apparently, Canadian bank notes have never featured the faces of women.

Ah, but they said “bank notes,” not currency. At least, some of them did. Here, Elizabeth appears only on the twenty, while prime ministers appear on four denominations, the five, ten, fifty, and hundred. On the reverse, there are only two identifiable human beings. One is an astronaut, sex impossible to determine inside the space suit. The other is a generic female scientist.

So there are indeed women on Canadian banknotes as well. It is not a question of “no women”; perhaps of two women vs. four men. At least, if one were going to demand equality on all counts, there should be more women on the obverse of the banknotes. But by the same token, there should be more men on the reverse and on the coinage. On balance, women are still currently overrepresented.

Quick fix: take Borden off the hundred, and put Elizabeth back on.

Everybody happy? I doubt it.

I do agree that putting prime ministers, heads of government, on the money is a boorish idea. It is like bringing up politics with someone you do not know. The entire point of having a monarch is that heads of government are released from the conflict of having to be seen as symbols of the nation. This keeps our politics free and honest. No Grit should really be obliged to revere a Tory prime minister, or vice versa; let alone the Dippers or the Greens. This is a good argument for keeping the Queen on all denominations.

The petitioners seem to be arguing that she does not count, because she is not a “Canadian woman.” But in what sense is the Queen of Canada not Canadian? Ethnically? Are we an ethnic nation? Okay, suppose we are. She is not ethnically English or Scottish, either. Can you imagine the British removing her from their currency for this? Do we really want to look like racist hicks?

Canadian one dollar from 1917, with the original Princess Pat.

Failing putting the head of state on the currency, it makes sense to feature major cultural—not political—figures. These serve well as symbols of the nation, because they in a real sense made the nation, and express its spirit: Shakespeare for England, Goethe for Germany, Mozart for Austria, Dante or Da Vinci for Italy. War heroes make some sense as well—they defended the entire country, presumably, and so can be seen as truly national. Dead ones, of course; live ones when glorified like this can be dangerous to one's liberty.

Sadly, it seems that this present protest was actually originally prompted by the removal of the “Famous Five” and Therese Casgrain from the reverse of the $50 bill. Indeed, how else can it be made to make any sense? It is not that there are no women on the bills; there obviously are. It must be that we are somehow morally obliged to honour these particular women, and no other.

But nothing could be a worse idea than featuring them on the bank notes. In the first place, as far as one can tell, they did nothing that was not driven by pure self-interest. No doubt the “Famous Five” wanted very much for it to be possible to appoint women to the Senate. Is that really a pressing concern for the average Canadian woman? Wasn't it something of more immediate interest to the Famous Five in their own careers? Nor did they take any obvious risks or make any personal sacrifices in pursuit of their goals—unless one considers being “famous” a burden. All were deft, from long experience, with a silver spoon. What sort of moral example, what sort of country, do they represent?

Is that really not a woman on the reverse?

Worse, they are clearly political figures, and in a far deeper sense than are prime ministers. They were highly ideological, highly partisan figures, controversialists, who were never called upon in life, as prime ministers were, to represent or to manage the entire country. Moreover, their ideologies were unrepresentative, generally unpopular with Canadians at the time. As head of the Quebec CCF, then the Quebec NDP, Casgrain, for example, never managed to get herself or anyone else elected to any public office. That in itself is a remarkable record. The “Famous Five” were public advocates for appointing women to the Senate, for whatever that is worth—women had been sitting in the British House of Lords for centuries, and they were already sitting in the Canadian House of Commons at the time, having been obviously recognized by all as persons. But they were also, all and severally, loudly for eugenics, against immigration, and for prohibition. Emily Murphy, their leader, was an especially open racist. Casgrain, of course, believed in nationalizing all key industries.

I think these still today count as controversial views. Canadians should be free to agree with them if they choose, but also to disagree if they choose. Canadians should, indeed, be free to believe more controversial things: that women should not be appointed to the Senate, or that women should not have the vote. That's how freedom works. No Canadian should be obliged to implicitly honour and endorse these views or these women by carrying their pictures in his wallet. Putting them on the currency is not the action of a free country.

The Countess and Earl of Aberdeen. In that order.

I do like, on the other hand, the idea of putting cultural figures on the currency instead of politicians. I am generally embarrassed by the current issue. The Canadarm—a bit part in someone else's project? A hokey image of someone looking in a microscope to represent medical research? Canada is better than this. And some women would indeed be worthy of being featured. I just don't think the women who deserve the honour would please these petitioners.

The one woman who probably has the best claim to be added, after all, is Queen Victoria, she being Canada's first Head of State. After that, if you want female war heroes, Laura Secord and Madeleine de Vercheres. If you want artists, Lucy Maud Montgomery, Pauline Johnson, La Bolduc. If you want humanitarians, Jeanne Mance, Marie de l'Incarnation, Marguerite de Bourgeoys, Marguerite d'Youville.

Ah, you might say, those last few are controversial, because they are Catholic saints. I say, if you make this objection, and you did not make the same objection to the Famous Five, you are a bigot. The Women's Christian Temperance Union is also a religious organization; they were all in it. So is the United Church, of which one of the Famous Five, Louise McKinney, was a founder. In any case, disqualifying a great humanitarian, someone who founded nursing orders, schools, and hospitals, because of her religion, is obviously anti-religious or anti-Catholic, not neutral between religions.

I'm all for having all these women on the currency. So long as we also have an equal number of men. I doubt anyone should or would really object, as they justifiably could to the Famous Five and Casgrain.

But putting the “Famous Five” on the currency, as if they are the best examples we have of Canadian womanhood, is an insult, first to Canadian women, and then to all Canadians.

Why? Is this Canadian self-hate, or what?

Events in North Korea

Kim Jong Un: Palm reading.

It looks as if something is happening in North Korea.

Kim Jong Un has not been seen in public since Sept. 2. There have been rumours spread by defectors that there has been a coup.

Now, if I understand aright, he has not appeared at the reviewing stand for the grand parade ending the celebrations of the party anniversary.

Very well, it might be true that he is simply ill. But then he must be very ill not to show up for this event. It can`t be just a pulled tendon, or gout. Not for a full month and more. It is destabilizing for him not to be there. And since he is only 31, and presumably surrounded by the best medical treatment available, the likelihood of serious illness is small.

One Korea expert has recently opined that there is really no chance of a coup, because legitimacy in North Korea is too completely tied to the Kim family. There is no other source of legitimacy available; to oust him would mean chaos.

Exactly. That fits with the thesis that there has already been a coup. It has not been publicly announced because to do so would be to court chaos. Instead, whoever is really in charge must indefinitely preserve the illusion that Kim is still in control. But Kim cannot be trusted to toe the line in public. So the absent leader.

If I understand the report I just heard on Al Jazeera correctly, Kim was not the only no-show at the anniversary parade. There also was not the traditional parade of weaponry.

Why not--unless there is strife within the leadership? Does anyone else remember how Anwar Sadat met his end? If the military leadership cannot be fully trusted, there is the danger that one unit or another might, in the middle of a parade, suddenly turn their weapons on the reviewing stand.

So, I say Kim Jong Un is probably no longer in power.

If I am right, this combines interestingly with recent events in Hong Kong. Pure coincidence, I'm sure, but together they risk being the perfect storm for the Chinese leadership as well. It only takes one match. Here are two.

Public School

``Now children, everyone repeat after me: `Sieg heil!``

There are things the schools should be teaching that they are not. That is, if their purpose is to give children a good start in life.

First, rhetoric. If that sounds too refined for you, call it “salesmanship.” “How to win friends and influence people.” There are techniques, well-known and well-established, honed over two thousand five hundred years. Warren Buffet, for example, says that everything he ever learned in school and college was worth far less to his success than one Dale Carnegie course. And this is obviously not just true in business—any business, which means any job. It is obviously also true in law, and in politics. You don't know rhetoric, you will never be a leader.

Second, how to run a meeting. Parliamentary procedure. Next to giving a good presentation or buttonholing, what on earth could be more important to the life of any organization—which means, again, any job—than being able to run or participate in a meeting fairly and efficiently. I am continually amazed at how rare this ability is, and how much trouble and expense is caused by its lack. And again, knowing how to run a meeting is vital well beyond business. It is essential to being able to organize to promote or protect your or your community's interests.

Third, debate; and specifically, the known logical fallacies. This is essential in order to know how to think in general. Clear thinking is vital in all endeavours, certainly all responsible jobs. Moreover, if you cannot spot a logical fallacy, you will easily be buffaloed by the unscrupulous into things against your interest. Schools and teachers talk about teaching students how to think, and how not to be taken in. But all this tends to amount to is telling them that all advertisements are lies. Which is both unhelpful and untrue. It is teaching students NOT to think.

Fourth, mnemonics. There are, once again, trued and proven techniques developed over two thousand five hundred years for memorizing things relatively painlessly. I am shocked to discover these late in life, realizing that nobody every breathed a word of this in all my years of education, beyond EGBDF. This seems insane, since if you have not remembered something, you have not learned it. Mnemonics is what teaching should be all about.

Why are these things, the most valuable things to know, not taught in the schools? Particularly since, really, giving presentations, debating, running formal meetings, mnemonic tricks, and analyzing logical fallacies are really much more interesting than the dry book work that occupies most school days.

Well, to be fair, they are. They tend to be taught in private schools. My colleagues in college who had gone to Upper Canada College, and my brother who was sent to Loyola for a few years, seem to have had a handle on a lot of this.

I could add one more issue here: when those schools do book work, the books tend to be the classics. Much more useful, and frankly better reading, than the books used in public schools.

So, let's see: we seem to know that there is a better way to educate, and those who can afford it are willing to pay for it. So what the devil is going on in the public schools?

No real mystery. The public schools are not there to educate or to give the kids the best shot at success of any kind in life. Certainly not to give them any power. They are there to keep the mass of kids ignorant, and prevent them from infringing on the power of the ruling classes—who send their kids to the better schools.

This was all pretty open and unconcealed in the development of government schools in Britain, where the rights of the upper class have traditionally been taken for granted. But it was also pretty evident in the development of the “modern” public school in North America in the early years of the 20th century. The school was developed on the model of the factory, and it was meant to pump out cogs for industry: useful but properly subservient employees. Woodrow Wilson, for one, is on record making noises to this effect. After all, you cannot train everyone for leadership, can you? Only a small number of leaders are needed, aren't they?

Fair enough, perhaps, but surely the choice should be on native ability and application, not on parents' income level and commitment. For the greatest benefit to the greatest number, we should be a meritocracy, not a class society.

And the growing call for credentials is not helping to remedy this deficiency in the public schools. For all the expansion at the university level has been in training for industry, never for leadership. In any case, all the important elements for success can easily be taught by the end of high school; there is no need to drag things out. Unless it it to teach subservience.

It is a terrible thing we are doing to our children.

Happiness is ...

North window, Notre Dame de Paris

Too late loved I Thee, O Thou Beauty of ancient days, yet ever new! too late I loved Thee! --St. Augustine, Confessions

You may have read recently, as I have, that Denmark is the happiest place on earth. But then, the OECD, contradicting this, has declared Australia the happiest developed country.

You would do well to read the fine print. These claims are completely bogus, and politically motivated. What these “studies” have done is selected the things they believe are social goods, and declared those countries happiest that have the most of them: highest income, longest lifespan, greatest “civic engagement,” and so forth.

Do these things really produce happiness? We do not know; though there is certainly evidence that high income does not. You might or might not have read the poem “Richard Corey”; but it is built on a common observation.

Dayana Mendoza, Miss Venezuela and Miss Universe 2007.

This is a sad thing about America. It is built on the “American Dream,” and the “American Dream” is basically, based on Calvinist theology, that the point of life is to get rich. A well-read Korean once asked me why it was that American literature almost always rejects the American Dream—that the American Dream is hollow seems to be the one great insight of American literature. There is an obvious reason. It is.

Now think for a moment: how on earth do you really measure happiness? How do you know that Sam, over there, is happier or sadder than James, over here? Happiness is a purely subjective quality. Even if you ask Sam, he cannot know whether he is happier or sadder than James.

But here's a really good idea that someone has actually had: go to Instagram, and tally different countries by the number and size of smiles. That really ought to work: a smile is usually a spontaneous external expression of happiness. And the study is half-blind—the subjects at least do not know they are being studied.

The results might or might not surprise you. Neither Denmark nor Australia make the top ten. Here they are:

1. Brazil 
2. Nicaragua 
3. Colombia 
4. Bolivia 
5. Costa Rica 
6. Honduras 
7. Venezuela 
8. Philippines 
9. Guatemala 
10. Mexico 

What does this teach us? First, as previously noted, having the highest income does not produce happiness. Brazil is the world's 60th richest country by GDP. As a group, in world terms, these countries are resolutely middle income—although dirt poor by Canadian standards. This demonstrates the wisdom of the old adage I just learned: it is best to be neither very rich nor very poor.

Having a democratic government, or even a good government, does not seem to help either. None of these countries would score well on either league table. Venezuela makes the list. On the other hand, none is nearly so efficient as to manage to be genuinely oppressive.

Having a lot of social services or a social safety net? Does not register. Life expectancy does not matter.

Two things do seem to matter: having a Latin culture, and being Catholic. That, and perhaps a warm climate.

Note that, despite being Latin, Spain and Portugal do not themselves make the list. This suggests that being too well-off is a hindrance to happiness. Note that, despite being both poor and Latin, Cuba does not make the list. This suggests that having too many social services is a hindrance to happiness—although it might instead be the absence of personal freedoms that tends to go with them. 

Sinulog, Cebu. It brought tears to my eyes.

I can vouch for the Philippines. It is quite uncanny, really, coming to the Philippines from most other countries in Asia. You go from everybody looking glum to everybody smiling. This despite the fact that most of the surrounding countries are currently richer.

It has also been a common observation about Ireland by those coming there, as most traditionally have, from England: despite everything, the Irish always seem so damned happy. It used to be a common observation about Quebec, by those coming there from English Canada or the USA.

Not all Latin cultures, but all Catholic.

This, to my mind, demonstrates that Catholicism really is the pinnacle of human civilization. As the accountant says in Citizen Kane, “anyone can become rich—if that's all you want to do.” Surely having a rich, full life is more valuable, and sacrificing that to become rich is a fool's bargain. One notes that even English Protestants, once they retire, prefer if they can afford it to move to Spain. Catholicism simply has the different parts of life in proper balance, and it is better at giving meaning to life. Without meaning, there is no happiness—depression is the absence of meaning.

Part of this is an appreciation for other people instead of material things. There is a deep human warmth one feels in an Irish, an Italian, or a Latin community. Part too is an appreciation for beauty. One of the most thoroughly oppressive things I find about England, or the US, or English Canada, something almost suffocating, is their lack of any interest in the beautiful. In fact, they seem to avoid it deliberately, as if they are trying to make a point. 

Notre Dame Basilica, Montreal

To a Catholic, this in itself is sacrilegious. God is three things: the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. To deny one is to deny his nature. And this is probably where the Latin cultures specifically are the world beaters. It is not a coincidence, surely, that Miss Universe or Miss World is usually from a South American nation. But I do not mean, of course, only the beauty of women. I mean taking the time and trouble to create beauty in daily life.

That, in a way, is Catholicism. Catholicism takes life, and makes it art.

Canada's Immigration Policy

What emigration to Canada used to involve.

For some bizarre reason, it is not obvious to everyone that Canada's current immigration policy is a bad idea.

The Canadian government prides itself on the idea that it selects only the best class of immigrants. Its point system ensures that immigrants are already well-educated and, most likely, well-heeled. The idea is that they will be able to immediately contribute to the society economically, and will not become a burden on the public treasury.

This is an obvious reversal of the old idea, in which immigrants were commonly and without apology the poorest and most destitute in the lands they left: the Irish of the famine years, the Eastern European refugees after the Second World War, the Ukrainians and Poles on the Prairies, and so forth. Recall the words on the base of the Statue of Liberty:

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,”

To some extent, no doubt, this reversal of policy has been prompted by the growth of the “social safety net.” In the old days, if immigrants came to Canada and did not do well, it was their own problem. Now, if they do not do well, it is everyone's problem.

But there are several problems with accepting only “high-quality” immigrants. And we ought to pause to ponder, when we are reversing a policy that served us for so long so well.

The first is the moral problem. In accepting the poorest of the poor, Canada and countries like her were doing good in the world. In seeking to skim off the cream elsewhere, to alienate wealth and expertise from other lands lacking in both, she has no intention of doing anybody else any good. This does not endear her to anyone, including God.

And the converse of this is: because she is not acting in charity, her newest immigrants have little reason to feel grateful for Canadian citizenship. It is just a business transaction. At the same time, they obviously need it less. Accordingly, they will appreciate it less. Instead of developing a real attachment to the new nation, they will view it, in the words of Yann Martel, as “a great hotel.” They will hang around so long as it seems to their advantage, and so long as nothing in particular is asked of them. But if anything is, if Canada ever really needs them, they will be on the first plane home.

This matters; much has been asked of our ancestors. This is no way to build a nation.

The politicians argue that poor immigrants take jobs away from poor Canadians. But by the same token, wealthy immigrants take jobs away from the wealthiest Canadians. Is that better? Doesn't it amount, over time, to importing a new, non-native ruling class? Which is to say, in effect, to reconverting Canada back into a colony? Is this what we owe our ancestors?

Nor, for that matter, is it clear to me that poor immigrants really do take jobs away from poor Canadians. On the whole, poor Canadians do not have jobs. They are able to choose not to work, and to live on social assistance. Poor immigrants, on the other hand, long held back in their own countries, are far more likely, I suspect, to take the dirty and the dull jobs that native Canadians scorn, in the hopes of moving up and ahead in future. Improving the overall economy, and helping pay for those benefits for the natives.

A more troubling consideration is this: poor Third World countries are almost always poor for one reason, and one reason alone: because they are burdened with a selfish and corrupt upper class.

Can you see the problem with carefully selecting only members of this Third World ruling class to emigrate to Canada? They will bring with them, firstly, their assumption of privilege, and so will generally be discontented with Canada's egalitarianism. They will bring with them, secondly, their culture of corruption, and introduce it directly into the Canadian ruling class. In moral terms, we are cherry-picking the worst. We are mainlining social HIV.

I am educated here, in part, by personal experience. My first wife, now deceased, was from an upper class Pakistani family. My second is from a poor Filipino family.

The friends and relatives of my first wife were uniformly hostile to Canada and to Canadian culture. They considered themselves cruelly discriminated against. Why? These are their actual answers: because they were not members of the Granite Club. Because they were not full partners in their accounting firm. Because their Oxford accent was called non-standard in Canada.

About half of them have since moved on, although of course they retain their Canadian citizenship. In case it comes in useful.

By contrast, all my Filipino wife's friends and relatives think quite highly of Canada. I can think of only one of her Filipino-Canadian friends who was content on the public purse. She was legitimately retired, and happy as a clam on a pension of $800 dollars a month. Everyone else was working hard in jobs like cleaning houses, security, clerking corner stores, minding carnival concessions. The kind of jobs, in short, the Canadian poor mostly don't seem very interested in.

It is the children or grandchildren of these Filipinos who will be the doctors and lawyers. And they will be committed Canadians once they are.

I envy the Americans their undocumented Mexicans.

Progressivism

One of the strongest myths of our times is the “Whig view of history.” Unconsciously, it seems to have been generally accepted on both the left and the right. In brief, at least as I would describe it, this is a general understanding that it is possible to foresee the political future, that one side in the current debate is for the future, and the other is for the past; and that the left is the party of the future. Hence those on the left commonly call themselves “progressives,” while William F. Buckley Jr. Once said that his stance was “standing athwart history, yelling 'stop.'”

It is not the same thing as believing in human progress. It is believing that human progress is predictable and moves in a straight line, corresponding to a particular political programme.

It might be convenient if this were true, at least for opportunists. For they could then simply ally themselves with the left, and expect to always eventually come out on top. Indeed, this may explain why many people support the left.

But it is obviously silly. No one can really foresee the future, and human beings are far too complex to be predictable in what they are going to think in twenty or fifty years. Or rather, they are going to be no less complex than the mind trying to figure this out.

Left to right: Labour leader Andrew Furuseth, Seantor Robert LaFollette, Lincoln Steffens.

In the real world, it would be easy to enumerate many visions of the political future, “progressive” causes, that have turned out to be dead ends. One thinks immediately of Lincoln Steffens's comment on visiting the Soviet Union in 1919: “I have seen the future, and it works.” Even as late as the 1970s, most Western intellectuals were talking of the inevitability of “convergence,” of the West becoming more like the Communist Bloc as well as the reverse—if not of the inevitability of the Communist Bloc taking over. That future, or those futures, are now ashes.

So is the future of the 1980s in which Japan was to dominate world commerce. 

Boccioni, "Unique Forms of Continuity in Space": probably the best-known example of Futurist sculpture.

Fascism, too, was, in its day, the way of the future. It was the political application of the latest scientific insights, those of Darwin and of Einstein. The aesthetic movement associated with Fascism called itself “futurism.” Nevertheless, a recent piece in Time magazine had so completely bought the Whig view that it actually defined Fascism as “the rejection of modernity.” One ought to be able to expect better of an organ like Time, but that's how pervasive the myth is.

There's more—lots more. Nothing was a more progressive idea at the turn of the 20th century than good old prohibition. It was during Woodrow Wilson's “progressive” administration that the worst of Jim Crow was enacted in the US South. Most “progressives” up to the Second World War were also active advocates of eugenics, until Hitler so thoroughly urinated in that pool.

In the Victorian period, cultural and moral progress was generally measured by the modesty of women: early missionaries to Korea considered that country relatively advanced because their women did not go abroad during the day. Indeed, one of the great accomplishments of Victorian progressivism was legislation limiting the work of women outside the home.

Stepping back a little further in time, England's “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 established the supremacy of parliament over the crown, produced the English Bill of Rights, and led directly to the American and French Revolutions and to much of what we now call liberal democracy and the doctrine of human rights. All “progressive” causes of the time, and still considered core “progressive” values today. But the immediate cause of the Glorious Revolution was the desire to prevent a Catholic from taking the throne. Anti-Catholicism and the open repression of Catholics was an essential element of “progressive” thinking in both England and the US for perhaps two hundred years. There was certainly no concept that any of these rights were to extend to non-Protestants—as there was no concept later that they should extend to Africans. The whole original idea of the “right to bear arms” was in order to protect oneself from Catholics out in the boondocks of Ireland.

I'd guess that the left is right about the future about fifty percent of the time, and the right gets it right the other fifty percent of the time.

But that should be irrelevant in any case, unless you are an opportunist. One's politics should be formed on principle, not as if a bet.