As We Were Saying in 1963, Before We Were So Rudely Interrupted...

 

Rumour is that RFK Jr. is going to announce an independent run, possibly with the Libertarian Party. This seems confirmed by a recent teaser video from his campaign.

He absolutely should. This is the only way around the DNC’s subversion of the democratic process. The American primary system is critical to allow for only two parties. If it is subverted, multiple parties are needed to ensure that all concerns are heard.

Some suggest this will take votes away from Trump, assuming Trump is the Republican nominee. They point to polls that show Kennedy actually more popular with Republicans than Democrats.

I think it will hurt Biden, should Biden be the Democratic nominee.

RFK is popular with Republicans. That does not mean he is their first choice. His situation is like that of Erin O’Toole in Canadian politics: the most acceptable Democrat to the other side, but not so much that they have any reason to vote for him instead of their guy.

With Trump, you are either love him, or hate him. Nobody loves Biden. The Biden vote is the anti-Trump vote. If the anti-Trump vote splits, he is in trouble.

Now picture strong runs by RFK Jr. for the Libertarians, and Cornell West for the Greens. 

In theory, Libertarians should take more votes from the right than the left: the left rejects their views out of hand while the right generally accepts them into their more tolerant tent. So Libertarianism is commonly considered to be on the right. However, proving the pudding, 2016 had a strong Libertarian ticket of Gary Johnson and William Weld, two former Republican governors. Trump won that race. He lost (if he did lose) four years later, when there was not a strong Libertarian ticket.

What seems to happen is that right-leaning Libertarians are happy enough to vote the Republican ticket, feeling their views are thus advanced. The Libertarian ticket is left more attractive to left-leaning Libertarians, who have no other home.

I believe it is also possible, in the current climate, that an RFK Libertarian ticket might catch fire. People are unhappy with the choice of Trump or Biden. They sense the system is broken, but may still see Trump as too reckless.  I can imagine Biden running third.

The Stolen Thrones

 

The Rolling Stones have a certain reputation. It is worth pointing out that it is all a sham.

I recently watched a documentary series on the Stones, aired by the CBC.

In in, Keith Richards refers to Mick Jagger as a very honourable man. Ron Wood refers to Richards as “a very moral guy,” and portrays him as being not just moral, but moralistic. Charlie Watts has stayed married to the same woman throughout their fame, and has avoided all the groupie action, despite the obvious and overwhelming temptations. Wood speaks of the band being guided by a “higher power”—the AA standard reference to God—and things coming to them “from above.”

It is true that members of the group have had drug problems. This is common among musicians. Apparently it is difficult to get up there on stage night after night as if you are someone special, and then have to prove it with your playing. Almost everyone seems to resort to drugs of some sort to steady their nerves. Many get addicted. Occupational hazard.

It is true that Bill Wyman, the original bassist, had a reputation for womanizing. But again, this is an occupational hazard, and another kind of addiction. Women will throw themselves at you if you perform onstage, or if you are famous. As Trump has famously remarked, and been condemned for pointing out. It would be hard for anyone to resist this temptation. And Richards has publicly scolded Wyman for giving in to it so completely.

"Sympathy for the Devil"? Listen to the lyrics. It is not on his side. Or listen to "Salt of the Earth"--a restatement of the Beatitudes. Or "Prodigal Son"; an uncritical restatement of the parable.

Jagger does not say that the “bad boy” image is wrong; it would be imprudent to do so, would damage the brand. And Jagger is a smart man and a canny businessman, someone who is able to give an interview in fluent French. But he does tell the interviewer that they are the same sort of blokes as the Beatles, and have always hung out with them. When the Beatles were marketed, at least initially, as fun-loving but essentially nice young men, the Stones management intentionally created the “bad boy” image for the Stones for marketing purposes, to distinguish the product.

In other words, it’s hype. People in general are incredibly naïve, and will usually just accept whatever hype they are fed.

Jesus Wept

 

Cohen’s “Come Healing” is a great hymn.

This in particular is a remarkable stanza. It explains original sin:

Behold the gates of mercy
In arbitrary space
And none of us deserving
The cruelty or the grace

But this is even deeper:

O, troubledness concealing
An undivided love
The heart beneath is teaching
To the broken heart above

And let the heavens falter
Let the earth proclaim
Come healing of the altar
Come healing of the name

“The Name” is how an Orthodox Jew refers to God himself. 

God himself is broken-hearted. God needs healing, and it is up to us to help. God is love, and there is no love without pain. God loves us with an unrequited love. We hurt him beyond measure, enough that he was prepared to die.

Jesus hears of the death of Lazarus.

He needs us. He created us because he needs us.

What? God has emotions? God has needs?

Of course he does. As Blake points out, the greatest thing any human can imagine is a perfect human. A being lacking emotion would be less than human, not more than human. Just a cyborg presence. God loves, he can be angry, he can be amused, he can be sad.

He is reaching out to us, like a lover,  vulnerable like a lover always is.

And let the heavens hear it
The penitential hymn
Come healing of the spirit
Come healing of the limb.

The Vaisnava Hindu metaphor of the Rasa-Lila: each soul dances with God.

Flowers for Hitler

 

These are strange days in Canada, getting stranger daily. The House of Commons recently gave two standing ovations to an unrepentant Nazi, a former soldier in the Waffen SS, of a unit implicated in some of the worst atrocities of the Holocaust. How did it happen?

I think we can take as given that they did not mean to do it. Once one member stands and begins to applaud, all other members will do likewise, unless they have some clear reason not to. For they are going to be grilled by the media and interest groups over why they did not. 

The Speaker, of the House Anthony Rota, has taken full responsibility, but claiming he did not realize just who he was introducing.

This sounds improbable; incredible. This was in the context of a state visit by Vladimir Zelensky, president of the Ukraine, in a time of war. Were guests not vetted by security services? It would be insane not to do so. Even without security services, the simplest of online searches would have revealed who Yaroslav Hunka was. Just the fact that he fought against Russia in the Second World War, the reason he was honoured by speaker Rota, was incriminating enough.

Moreover, some have pointed out from the video of the moment that Rota falters a bit when he reads that Hunka fought against Russia in the Second World War. His eyebrow goes up. He seems not to have been aware of this, and suspects something. Yet it is too late to pull out; he continues.

He is reading someone else’s words, and is surprised.

Lisa Raitt noes that, if some war veteran is introduced to Parliament, his regiment is cited, and where it fought. Details are omitted in Hunka’s case; whoever wrote Rota’s remarks seems to have known they would be a problem.

Rota has taken the fall; it does not seem possible that he was responsible.

Was it someone in his office setting him up? If acting alone, I don’t see the motive.

At the same time, it does not seem possible that the Trudeau government was trying to slip this by. They had little to gain by doing so—perhaps an extra pander to the Ukrainian-Canadian lobby, on top of the cheque to Zelensky--and too much to lose.

So whodunit?

It seems to me it must have been the security service itself; or the deep state, acting collectively. They must have vetted Hunka, known who he was, and set the government, Rota, and parliament up.

The security services seem to have turned on Trudeau; it was they who leaked the information about Chinese interference in Canada. Those leaks seemed coordinated and systematic, keeping the issue hot for week after week. This may be a continuation of the same campaign.

Why is the Trudeau government not pointing the finger at the real culprits?

Because the security services are already too powerful. As Scott Adams predicted, or observed, they were inevitably going to seize power in any government. The Deep State is and always has been the Liberals’ key constituency. The Liberals cannot turn on them.

At the same time, the Deep State may not need the Liberals. They may own the Tories too. Best, then, to make it clear to the Grits just who is boss. Pull the plug on the little jerk. And their recent leaks and this incident too, seem tailored to discredit parliament and our democracy itself, not just the current government.

It is eerie, as well, that the revelation that there are Nazis living peacefully and with honour in Canada also dovetails well with recent charges from the Indian government, made in response to Trudeau’s attacks over the murder of Najjar Singh. How far does this coordination spread?

Muslims Condemn Trudeau

 

It's all coming apart.

Now who's the Islamophobe?

Fun Times in India

 

Was cocaine found on Trudeau's plane in India?

Of course, Indi has every incentive to spread such a rumour even if untrue.

One Million and One?

Friend Xerxes has come out with a column on the One Million March for Kids. Of course he is in support of the transgender ideology, but shows a bit of uncertainty now. He notes that Blaine Higgs’ requirement that parents be informed if a student decides to transition sounds, superficially reasonable, but…

As someone who marched on September 20, I assure you, gentle reader, that the protest was not about getting parental consent for changing gender. It was to remove SOGI from the schools: that is, discussion of sexual orientation and gender ideology.

Simply informing parents and requiring their consent for a change of gender is not enough. Schools should not be teaching children that it is possible to change their sex—because it is not. This introduces grievous confusion about self-image and physical reality that can lead to mental illness and suicide. It is the perfect prescription for driving a child mad. Almost 50% of those experiencing “gender dysphoria” have actually attempted suicide.

Children have difficulty distinguishing fantasy from reality. They can imagine themselves to be a dump truck, or the old woman down the street to be a witch. This should not be exploited to confuse them. They need to be taught unambiguity what is real and what is not. Otherwise you are grooming them for schizophrenia.

In addition, openly endorsing gay sexuality in schools contradicts the religious teachings of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and other faiths. Religious liberty and freedom of conscience requires that such subjects must be removed from public schools.

It also has the schools directly contradicting the moral teachings of the children’s parents and faith tradition—again introducing confusion and disorientation that is likely to lead to depression and mental illness. Which is a current emergency. Along with reckless drug use, depression is skyrocketing in our society. I believe it is up 28% over just the last two years.

What we call depression is a loss of direction and meaning in life. And this is also the cause of drug abuse. The schools are now seemingly systematically stripping children of all sense of reality and direction.

Xerxes argue, in defense of teaching children about sexuality in graphic detail and letting them decide to be the opposite sex:

“Children are neither slaves nor serfs. They have a constitutional right to make their own choices.”

If he really held this view, he could not require them to attend school in the first place. Or do what the teacher tells them once there. Few children want to. 

If you cannot agree to that, gentle reader, and to children consenting to sex or marriage too, and so forth, then to make an exception for choosing their “gender identity” is suspiciously inconsistent.

Among other things, it requires you to endorse pedophilia—and this is indeed where this all seems to be headed. It looks like grooming.

Xerxes then argues that, if kids are allowed to choose their own nicknames, they ought also to choose their own sex.

But words are not things. What you call yourself is a matter of choice. But nobody chooses whether to be a boy or a girl, any more than they choose whether to be a dump truck or a marmoset. If a child insisted their skin was green, they were made of glass, and they needed to drink blood, the same issue would arise. Endorsing and encouraging such claims would be just as damaging, especially if it led to “corrective surgery.” 

Xerxes writes, of the parent of a hypothetical boy who decides he is a girl:

            “If I were her daughter, I would be terrified of telling her that I thought I was in the wrong body.”

To say you are in the “wrong body” makes no more sense than declaring that gravity should not apply to you. You cannot dictate physical reality. To do so is insanity by definition.

If a child’s chosen sex is not honoured in their school, Xerxes warns,

            “It would be much easier to drop out of that school completely, and start a new life somewhere else.

            Except that a farmer’s daughter in rural Saskatchewan, or a lobster fisher’s son in New Brunswick, may not have any other place where they can start anew.”

Moving to a new town won’t help.

I cannot decide I am seven feet tall, 21 years old and handsome, either. And I still would not be in Saskatchewan. Which is why the gender dysphoric who undergo surgery are just as likely to kill themselves afterwards. The only cure is to treat the gender dysphoria, and the underlying disorientation. Which cure is being made illegal.

Xerxes:

            “Teachers may be better informed and more compassionate than parents.

            “Yes, some teachers are incompetent and biased. But even those teachers have years of training in dealing with adolescent growth. Few parents do.”

A teacher may indeed be better informed and more compassionate than the parents. But the odds are against it.

If it were merely a question of who knows best, governments would have the right to dictate to us in general, on the premise that they have access the best experts. That’s the way it works in China; but no human rights. 

We each have an inherent, God-given right to make our own choices. It is for this we were created—for the exercise of free will.

Adults do often know better than children what is best for the child; and children need guardianship or they may do themselves harm. The question then is, which adult has the child’s best interests at heart? Which adult knows this particular child’s needs best? The parent, or the state?

If you think it is the state, through their schools and their assigned teachers, you must also endorse the Indian residential schools. You simply want the same principle extended to the general population.

While there are bad parents, paternal instinct ensures that parents normally love their children and want the best for them. An unrelated bureaucrat, who is just doing a job for pay, does not have the same instincts for a mass of strangers.

Teachers also have no special knowledge in this area. Teachers do not have training in “adolescent growth,” by which is presumably meant psychology or child psychology, as Xerxes suggests; perhaps a course or two in teachers’ college. It is not their job. But even if they did, the fields of psychology and child psychology have established nothing; there is no consensus on anything within the field, only shifting theories. Children should not be involuntarily experimented on. That is a violation of human rights. Just teach the curriculum.

Xerxes then laments that those who want the decision left to the parents are “trapped in a hierarchical mindset. They still believe that power devolves downwards from the top.”

Here he is oddly arguing against himself. Perhaps we are actually witnessing a mind I the act of changing. He had only just claimed the teachers, the school and the state know better than the parents, and we “should be controlled by the more competent.” 

Subsidiarity means the decision should be left with the parents: at the lowest level possible, the level closest to the child.

Or, in the common slogan of the marchers, “Leave the kids alone!”

The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard

 

20 “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2 He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

3 “About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4 He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5 So they went.

“He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. 6 About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’

7 “‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.

“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.

8 “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’

9 “The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12 ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’

13 “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

16 “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

This Sunday’s gospel reading is a bit challenging. It seems to say, and is commonly understood to say, that late conversion from a sinful life is as good as remaining faithful and doing good all life long for getting into heaven. This suggests that heaven is an up or down thing, in or out. Yet elsewhere in the Bible, and in Catholic teaching, it is not: everyone must pay for their sins in Purgatory, and some saints are greater in heaven, seated closer to the throne. So what point is being made here?

I think two details in the story may be important. First, while the owner of the vineyard promises the first batch of workers a specific wage, one denarius, he makes no specific promise to any of the later groups: they work for whatever he is prepared to pay them. He promises nothing at all to the last group; not even to pay them. Second, the late hires are not idle by choice, but because no one has hired them. They were there, seeking work. They are not in the position of sinners, and have no debt to pay in purgatory.

The distinction seems to be, not between the righteous throughout life and sinners who convert late, but between those who do the right expecting reward, and those who do the right in trust in God, because it is right. The former will get their reward, for God is just. But the latter are preferred.

In fact, this implies hierarchy in heaven: “The last shall be first” means the hierarchy is reversed, not abolished.

Those who think only of what is right, what work there is to do, rather than of advantage, shall be rewarded first, perhaps with less labour in purgatory, or with fewer actual meritorious deeds required.

Liar, Liar

 

The latest Liberal meme has Poilievre’s photo and the tagline “How to Spot a Liar.”

This, interestingly, is the same tag used down south where the paw paws grow against Donald Trump. As previously noted here, the striking thing about Trump is that he speaks the truth. This complaint against Trump is a perfect example of confession through projection. Perhaps in Poilievre’s case as well.

Let’s examine their claims, about how to spot a liar, about Poilievre, and applied to Trump and to Trudeau as well.

 1. Deliberately vague on details.

With respect to lying, this does not fit. Being vague on details is as likely to be an honourable attempt to avoid lying—to avoid promises one may not be able to keep. If one is lying, one is surely just as happy to lie about details.

It is true that Poilievre has not given a lot of details about what the Conservatives would do in power. This is typical of an opposition party this far out from an election. To do so would be to give the government unnecessarily ample time to prepare their counter-arguments. Poilievre is merely playing the game as it is always played. He has made specific and striking promises: to defund the CBC, to tie federal money to housing starts.

Trump is generally vague or even wrong on details when he speaks. This has to do with speaking extempore, not from a teleprompter like most politicians. He is also not a policy wonk by interest and temperament, but a manager. On the other hand, he was more specific than other candidates when running for the Republican nomination: for example, he would build a wall on the southern border. And he did everything to fulfill that promise.

Trudeau is also not detail-oriented. “The budget will balance itself.” “Housing is not primarily a federal responsibility.” He is always vague, even though he is in power, and responsible for getting things done.

2. Uses embellished language.

This does ring true: a liar will try to buffalo the public or the opposition with word salads and impressive-sounding, official-sounding words.

This is the opposite of the case with Trump, who deliberately uses street language. They might have a case if they said he exaggerates, but that is not the claim. “Huge” or “incredible” or “nobody ever imagined” are not embellished language. Nor are they tailored to mislead.

Poilievre, too, always uses simple and straightforward language: “my home, your home, our home, let’s bring it home. “The common sense of the common people.” “Just answer: Yes or no.” This is his most obvious talent.

Trudeau is the clear offender here. Only a few days ago he seems to have invented a word, “biphobia,” in order to buffalo listeners. This, along with his other favoured terms “Islamophobia,” “transphobia,” and “homophobia,” are fake medical terms intended to sound scientific. How about the ever-evolving “2SLGBTQ+”? How about “peoplekind”? Trudeau likes big, important-sounding words and word salads.

3. Exaggerated emotional displays.

True for liars in general. Partly because they are actors; partly because the act of lying tends to get you agitated, as lie detectors know. I think of O.J. Simpson saying he “absolutely” did not kill his wife.

Trump seems oddly serene when attacked. He never seems to lose his temper or make an emotional appeal to his audience. “But that’s okay.” His appeals are humorous, which is broadly the opposite, an intellectual, rational appeal.

It is striking that Poilievre, too, always keeps an even tone, and never seems agitated. His voice is oddly monotonous, in the literal sense. He conspicuously avoids sounding emotional.

Justin Trudeau, on the other hand, often expresses anger, outrage, if faux outrage, in speech.

4. Relies on derogatory labels.

This is perhaps not lying per se, but it is not legitimate. It is ad hominem. Amusingly, this is exactly what this current Liberal meme is doing, in calling Poilievre a liar rather than addressing his arguments.

Trump indeed does it a lot. “Crooked Hillary,” “Lyin’ Ted,” and so forth. It is, to my mind, his worst characteristic.

Poilievre doesn’t seem to do it.

Trudeau does it as his standard first line of attack in debate. Opponents are always homophobic, misogynistic, Nazi sympathizers, racist, Islamophobic, far right, extremists, white supremacists, a radical fringe element, anti-vaxxers, and on and on.

5. Overuse of sarcasm/humour.

This is the opposite of the truth, and exposes the Liberals. Liars and miscreants have no sense of humour. Jokes are too likely to expose them. 

"Those who do not laugh have bad consciences." - Brothers Grimm, "The Twelve Brothers."

This is why courts used to deliberately employ court jesters—to keep the king and court honest.

Conversely, it is hard to imagine convincing an honest person that there is “too much” humour in the world.

Trump is a great stand-up comedian. It is characteristic of his opposition that they cannot see this, and actually “fact-check” his jokes and call them lies.

Poilievre is extremely witty, and generally responds to attacks with good humour.

It is, conversely, hard to imagine Justin Trudeau pulling off a joke; even scripted. I have seen no evidence he even has a sense of humour.

What, indeed, does this tell you?

6. References undefined “they.”

This is a fault—although blaming an undefined “they” is still better than falsely blaming, say, “the Jews,” or “men,” or “whites.”

Trump might be accused of this. He identifies “they” only as “the swamp in Washington” or “the Deep State” or “Antifa.” The problem here is that “they” refuse to identify themselves. They are, in the standard phrase, “faceless bureaucrats,” who avoid personal attribution and work behind the scenes. And then there is Antifa, who always wears masks. Trump cannot be blamed for their anonymity.

Poilievre blames “the Trudeau government.” That is realistically as specific as he can be. And his job as opposition leader.

Trudeau generally endorses conspiracy theories blaming men, whites, and Christians. He also blames everything said critical of his government on unspecified “foreign agents,” or “white supremacists,” or “American billionaires,” or the like; most often all of them working together. Always some amorphous conspiracy supposedly behind the people we see.

7. Assigns thoughts and motives.

This, if not lying as such, is also illegitimate in debate. It is close kin to lying.

Does either Trump or Poilievre do it? Not conspicuously, surely. Trump will do it, then draw back and point out that he doesn’t really know.

This is most obviously characteristic of Trudeau, who invariably attributes misogyny, homophobia, racism, white supremacy, Nazi sympathies, and so on, to any opposition.

8. Talks/changes topics quickly.

Two different things are conflated here: changing topic, and talking quickly. They are unrelated.

Changing topic is an illegitimate debate tactic: a red herring.

I don’t see either Trump or Poilievre doing this beyond what any politician will do when asked a loaded question. One cannot directly answer “have you stopped beating your wife?”

Trudeau and his ministers invariably use red herrings in question period. They will respond to difficult question by raising an entirely different issue. It is so ridiculous the Tories have resorted to counting the number of times in succession that Ministers of the Crown have failed to answer the same direct question.

On the other hand, talking fast is a sign of high intelligence; it is a sign of how quickly the brain is working. In fact, a liar will be more likely to speak slowly, because he must guard and measure his words.

Poilievre is extremely quick in speech, and quick-witted. So is Trump; although his actual speech is fairly slow, he is fast enough on his feet to come up with devastating quips in debate, or to speak for two hours extempore.

Trudeau speaks relatively slowly, with many conspicuous “ah’s” as he thinks about what he is about to say.

A sure sign of a liar.

9. Presents his own opinions as facts.

This would be lying indeed.

The issue is clouded, perhaps, by the realty that the postmodern left does not believe there are any facts. In the immortal words of The Dude, “Well, that’s just your opinion, man.” So whenever Trump or Poilievre actually state a hard fact, a statistic or the wording of the constitution, say, they are, in the minds of the modleft, presenting their opinion as a fact. Can’t win on that one.

I can, however, on the other hand, by either the traditional or the postmodernist definition, see examples of opinion presented as fact in the case of Trudeau. Claiming that men can be women, or women men. Claiming that the science is settled on climate change. Claiming that gays or trans are born this way. Claiming that Canada has no mainstream culture. Claiming that India assassinated a Canadian citizen. Claiming that the truckers of February were trying to overthrow the government. Claiming there were mass graves near or under the residential schools. Examples could be multiplied.

10. Projects extreme confidence.

This again is the opposite of the truth. Lie detectors operate on the principle that one is never fully confident in a lie. The convention of the duel, or the joust, as well, are based on the psychological wisdom that the hand of the unjust will falter in the crisis.

Jesus Christ projected extreme confidence in the crisis. As did Churchill, as did Martin Luther King.

Trump is indeed supremely confident—conspicuously more than most politicians. He has been tested more. So is Poilievre—certainly more than other recent Conservative leaders. 

Trudeau? He seems confident enough; but since he has been in power for almost all of his political career, he has not really been tested. To my mind, there is usually fear in his eyes.

What do we learn from this?

The Liberals have nothing on Poilievre. They have no arguments.

Fourth Day Running!

 

Another anti-government protest rally in Toronto today.

https://www.youtube.com/live/bQxtm3ZJm84?si=byhbt8Q3ixfEG9gN

More than a Million March?

 

Last Wednesday I attended the One Million March for Children locally. The march was exhilarating. Muslims and Christians marching together, young and old; everyone waving the Canadian flag and singing “O Canada.” We were all one, and all friends. It was marred, it is true, by a small group of counter-protesters waving rainbow flags. But that evening, I was discouraged. I saw the hateful posts by Jagmeet Singh, Justin Trudeau, and our local city hall, declaring the parents bigots.

Singh:

“The rise of hate towards the 2SLGBTQI+ community is deeply alarming.

All people deserve safety and freedom to be who they are.

Today and every day, New Democrats stand with the trans community in solidarity.”

Trudeau:

"Let me make one thing very clear: Transphobia, homophobia, and biphobia have no place in this country. We strongly condemn this hate and its manifestations, and we stand united in support of 2SLGBTQI+ Canadians across the country – you are valid and you are valued."

City of Saint John:

“The City is aware of the '1 million march 4 children' taking place today throughout the city, including at various school locations.

While the City supports people's rights to organize and protest, we stand by, and with, our 2SLGBTQIA+ community and their right to live their lives free of hate, harassment and discrimination.”

The city then changed their Facebook page photo to show a largeish crowd waving pride flags.

And silence from Poilievre and the Conservatives. It seemed the concerned parents, kids, and, indeed, teachers like me, were just going to be slimed, their concerns falsified, and nobody was going to listen. 

I was heartened when I got off the bus the next day. I saw that the kids at the high school next door were staging a large walkout in support of the march. Word had gotten out, and they were encouraged to follow suit. Bullhorn, placards, no counter-protesters. Maybe this thing will grow.

Then yesterday, I see on YouTube, there was another big rally at three schools north of Toronto, including some prominent speakers.

And now Pierre Poilievre has at last chimed in:

“Justin Trudeau always divides to distract from all he has broken. This time, he is demonizing concerned parents. 

Parents should be the final authority on the values and lessons that are taught to children. Trudeau should butt out and let parents raise their kids.”

Poilievre is a politician first and last. He was not going to sacrifice himself for principle. If he has now come out for the protesters, he has made the calculation that this movement is growing. He is calculating he will get more votes by supporting it than he will lose.

The snowball may have begun its slalom downhill.

One Hell of a Hangover

 

Buddhist Bardo

Friend Xerxes declares, without details, that he came to a “rational conclusion” long ago that there is no afterlife. 

Yet he then presents evidence from his own experience that there is an afterlife. He hears his late wife’s voice; he feels her move beside him in the bed.

He dismisses it only by denying Aristotle’s Law of Non-Contradiction, which is the foundation of all rational thought. He says there is no “either/or,” only “both/and.”

In other words, his belief that there is no afterlife is unmoveable by either reason or evidence. The phrase “long ago” here is telling: he, like many another, has his heart set on no life after death, and will not permit himself to think any more about it. It is a doctrine in literal denial of both reason and evidence. On what basis, then, does h hold it?

The New Atheists commonly claim that belief in an afterlife is wish fulfillment. “Pie in the sky when you die.” This is projection. Most people do not want there to be an afterlife. If there is no afterlife, we can do as we please here and now and get away with it.

The concept of an afterlife comes with the concept of cosmic justice, and always has, world-wide. We will one day stand naked before God, all our acts revealed. We must submit to a higher authority than ourselves. According to the Ojibwe, wild dogs will tear us apart for our sins. In Hindu or Buddhist terms, we must pay our karmic debt. Merely ceasing to exist, to break this cycle, is the ultimate Buddhist or Hindu hope: “nirvana” means non-being.

As with so many, Xerxes does not believe in an afterlife because he does not want there to be an afterlife. There is nothing to fear in simply going sleep and never waking up; there is nothing to fear in being blown out like a candle.

On the other hand, his love of his late wife is saying something different. Love speaks of the eternal. Or his wife is herself calling him, out of her love for him.

A Fishy Tale

 

Friend Xerxes, the left-listing columnist, explains recently to his readers that the Catholic Lenten fast is actually because, in late winter and early spring, all the meat was likely rotten, and in older times our misbegotten ancestors had to make do with vegetables. Poor sots.

This is of course ridiculous. Livestock does not die off in the fall, nor do they migrate south. Any peasant who could afford meat at other times of the year could have fresh meat in spring if they so wished. Not to mention the various means of preserving meat without modern refrigeration: smoking, drying, salting. It is fruits and vegetables, the very things permitted by the fast, that would have been in short supply in early spring.

We also have the testimony of early church fathers, St. Jerome, St. Leo the Great, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Isidore of Seville, that the Lenten fast was passed down to us from the apostles.

A similar familiar claim is that the Friday and Lenten fasts were a scheme to support the fishing industry. 

But even in pre-Christian times, religious fasts allowed the eating of cold-blooded animals. Taxonomies were different; in effect, the line then was set at cold versus warm blooded, whereas modern Western vegetarians set it at whether the creature has the ability to move, the plant/animal distinction. The rule in Buddhist vegetarianism is, you do not eat anything that recognizably has a face.

There is, clearly, a general desire to discount fasting as a religious or moral practice. It is reflected in my own experience: people want to believe I am vegetarian for health reasons. They become subtly hostile when they hear it is for moral reasons.

People fear morality. This is the eternal battle.

Have a great Friday.

UK Backs India

 

UK PM Sunak publicly backs India against Canada in the Khalistan row.

Who could have imagined it even a year ago? Trudeau has lost Canada support from its oldest and closest ally, the mother country, beside whom and in whose defense we fought in the two World Wars.

The Season of Creation

Friend Xerxes alerts us that in the month of September, “Christians around the world join in the Season of Creation.”

“For far too long, Christian churches have ignored the environment we live in. Indeed, we have used the words in Genesis as excuses to ‘multiply’ and to ‘subdue the earth.’”

            “The Season of Creation challenges us to recognize that we are part of this earth, not separate from it.”

Good of Xerxes to let me know. This “Season of Creation” does not appear in the Catholic liturgical calendar, and it has never been mentioned at a parish I attend. 

Indeed, it is hard to see how it fits in: the liturgical calendar traces the process of salvation, from anticipation of Christmas to the Feast of Christ the King. It is not about creation and the time before the Fall. Nor is celebrating rivers and rocks the concern of religion in general. That is more the purview of empirical science.

Which our culture is perhaps inordinately concerned with, on the whole. It is the ethics and the salvation and the next life we tend to forget.

Which I guess justifies Xerxes’s assertion that Christian churches have ignored the environment. Indeed, the Bible tells us to be “in this world, but not of it,” and the Church warns against the temptations of “the world, the flesh, and the devil.” 

Moreover, Exodus tells us “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.” One ought not, in sum, to worship nature. This is the great temptation, the great idolatry.

In Genesis 1, as Xerxes admits, God’s prime directive to mankind is “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.” God, apparently, is making “excuses.” For yeah, what we really all want is the guilty pleasure of working hard, raising a family, and bettering the world, instead of lying back and admiring the sunsets.

The point of man is to take the clay and breathe spirit into it: to spiritualize the raw material of creation to build the New Jerusalem. Moreover, the essence of morality is the struggle against our natural instincts.  That is what raises us above weasels and wolverines.

So it seems we have a choice: either follow God, the good, the wisdom of the ages, the reason for our existence, and the spiritual universe of art and culture; or follow Xerxes, Mother Nature, and the World Council of Churches.

We have come to the crossroads.

The One Million March

 

Today I attended the “One Million March for Children.” It was a festive occasion, despite a smaller group of counter protesters that was not kept separate from the main protest. (It strikes me as worrisome that the police were not there separating the two groups. Did they want trouble?) Most of the “Million” marchers, perhaps a few hundred in our small city, were plainly Middle Eastern—Muslims. A few black and white faces interspersed. I saw one clerical collar. 

The counter-protesters were all quite pale; although their hair came in many colours.

The counter-protesters held signs that said “Smash the Cis-tem,” “We refuse to disappear,” and something like “Down with your ignorance.” They waved rainbow flags and pastel trans flags. The Million Marchers chanted “leave our kids alone” and “let kids be kids,” sang “O Canada,” and waved Canadian flags. Many had kids with them. March speakers stressed they had nothing against gays or transvestites.

One of the counter-protesters stood behind me when we reached the town park. She started to heckle the speaker, but was soon engaged instead in rather civil conversation by a marcher. The counter-protester, said she was concerned with every child being safe, including “trans kids.”

The marching parent said, “What about my daughter? She’s bullied at school because she attends church. Shouldn’t she be safe?”

One of the kids said “What about shared washrooms?”

 The counter-protester said she was a teacher, and three of her students had committed suicide. Trans kids. So there’s a real problem.

That’s surely alarming, and is probably true: the rate of depression, anxiety, and suicide has been rising since the end of the Second Word War. Just in the past few years, it has jumped about 28%. Not to mention the skyrocketing rate of death by drug overdose. And Medical Assistance in Dying.

An odd coincidence: there was no suggestion of gender ideology, or even the concept of gender as applying to psychology as opposed to grammar, until 1947. Once it appeared, the rate of depression and suicide began to rise. If there is not a direct connection, the gender ideology may well be a symptom of a larger problem: a general loss of our social bearings, our grip on what is and is not real, or on what is right and wrong. We’ve lost the faith.

We also know from studies that the rate of attempted suicide among kids experiencing “gender dysphoria” is about 48%. It is not lower for those who undergo puberty blocking or surgeries—those “affirmed” in their claim that they are another sex. They end up just as dead.

The obvious conclusion is that introducing SOGI—sexual orientation and gender identity—to the schools does not prevent kids from committing suicide. It murders them.

Depression is a loss of meaning; a feeling that one is trapped in a maze with no sense of the right direction, of no solid ground under your feet. Nothing around you makes sense; you cannot trust those around you, or even perhaps the evidence of your own eyes. You no longer know which way is up, or who you are, or what you are supposed to do or be. It is a loss of the sense of he rules  of the game.

This being so, nothing could be much more poisonous than challenging a young person to question their sex, their “gender.” But SOGI also seems calculated to disorient them with respect to their relationship with their parents and with their religious traditions. Cutting away all the ground on which they can stand and establish their identity.

It could hardly be more sinister—even aside from the fact that it looks like deliberate sexual grooming, an often leads to sterilization and cutting off body parts. Something a depressed kid is already too easy to persuade to do to make the pain stop.

Canada's Economy on Course to Surpass China's by 2060

 

Believe it or not.

Trudeau Accuses India

 

Hardeep Singh Nijjar

If the Indian government was involved in murdering a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil, as Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has publicly alleged, it is a very serious matter.

Accordingly, it is a very serious allegation, one the Indian government has denied. India is an important country, the second largest in the world, and the world’s largest democracy. It is a fellow member of the Commonwealth. It is increasingly important not only for trade, especially as the West is trying to decouple from China, but also vital to the other democracies as a potential military ally against China. We cannot afford to pick quarrels with India. It is madness to pick fights with India, unless we are very sure of our allegations.

And Trudeau has no proof—only “credible allegations.” That, in the world of normal diplomacy, is not enough to go public as he has. 

Murder is murder, and people are people, but it is also perhaps worth noting that Trudeau seems to be inflaming the incident by referring to Hardeep Singh Nijjar as a Canadian citizen. It is unclear that he is. He entered Canada illegally on a forged passport in 1997. He then applied for refugee status, and was refused. Eleven days later, he married a Canadian women—what looks like a marriage of convenience. She sponsored him for citizenship. Again he was refused. So it seems he was still in the country illegally when murdered.

He is also, for what it is worth, claimed by India to be the leader of the Khalistan Terror Force and involved in various terrorist acts in that country. He is the subject of an Interpol “notice,” whatever that means.

So he may or may not have been a dangerous criminal. This surely gives the Indian government reason to want to kill him; but it also means people other than the government of India might have had motives for killing him.

Trudeau is acting recklessly.

I suspect it is designed to draw attention away from China’s interference in Canadian elections, and Trudeau and the Liberals’ collusion with that hostile foreign power.

At the same time, it panders to Canada’s large and politically active Sikh population. At Canada’s expense.

The opposition parties sadly will be obliged to play along with Trudeau. Otherwise, they look disloyal. 

It looks to me like an ugly, cynical play.

The Million Person March

In a couple of days, on September 20, a “Million Person March” is planned for cities across Canada, “against gender ideology in schools.” The claimed intent is to protect children against abuse by the schools; the common slogan is “leave our kids alone!” The concern is that schools and other authorities are encouraging children to question their gender, explore sexuality at very young ages, even in some cases undergo medical procedures to change their sex, and even without their parents being informed. 

Others are organizing against the march. Those opposed to it also say they are protecting children from abuse—protecting transgender children who might be abused by their own families, should their families be informed of their gender transition.

Who is right?

To begin with, the first question needs to be: who is more likely to have the best interests of the child at heart, the government and the school, or the parents?

Some parents are abusive; this is a truth too rarely acknowledged. On the other hand, historically speaking, most governments and government bureaucracies are openly abusive; most families, by contrast, do care for their children. It is instinctive. Accordingly, the family should be given precedence. There should be some clear reason to suspect abuse in a specific case before the state can intervene. 

Yet here, family abuse is the default assumption.

This looks like an attack on the family rather than a concern for the interests of children.

Beyond this, the concept of “gender” is arbitrary. It is in the first instance a grammatical term: words have gender, not people. “Bridge” is masculine in French. “Sea” is feminine. In this sense it is of course nonsensical to speak of a child changing his or her gender. Can we also ask a bridge what his preferred pronouns might be?

The second meaning of “gender” is as a cognate for the word “sex”: “males or females viewed as a group.” It is nonsensical to speak of children changing sex. Sex is a simple biological fact, programmed into every cell of your body. 

The third meaning first appeared, according to Oxford, in 1945. “The state of being male or female as expressed by social or cultural distinctions and differences, rather than biological ones.” The term expresses the modern feminist claim that men and women are identical mentally and emotionally, and are arbitrarily forced into social roles based on their physical sex.

If you buy this claim, there is no justification for “gender transition.” Gender is purely a social construct. What is there to transition to or from, other than to deny and reject the construct? Women simply need to refuse to stay in the home, or be sexually passive, and so forth. Men only need to choose to wear nice clothes and cook and clean. Why would there be any sense in surgically altering body parts?

So the bottom line is that gender transition is logical nonsense. It is a mask concealing the sexual grooming of children. And perhaps worse: deliberate intent to do them permanent harm.

Reflections at the Beginning of a New School Year

 

When I was young, I trusted and respected teachers. I always went along with the rules. An old diary reminds me I was diligent about never being late; one year I won a prize for best behaved.I was a good kid and a good student.

I now realize this was a mistake.

Not just that the troublemakers and the slackers and the guys ho just hung out did at least as well in the rough and tumble of real life as I. The problem was more that most of what the teachers taught us were lies.

We were taught science as a series of established truths about the physical universe. In later years, many, perhaps most, of these unquestionable truths have turned out not to be true, and I too often look like a fool when I propound them. Science, as they say, marches on. It is not a set of known truths, but an attitude of universal scepticism, that tests everything rather than accept anything on authority. It never makes any claim to truth, only to working hypotheses, and only disproves falsehoods. The false cosmology we were taught as science, in other words, was the opposite of science. It was worse than a waste of our time; it was misinformation.

In English, the later and usually best works of most great poets were not on the curriculum. This was so even through college. We were left with the false and depressing impression that poets always burned out in romantic youth. Yeats was the notable exception—even his latest poems appeared on the curriculum. Because, I suspect, he stayed pagan to the end.  The problem with all the others is that, as they matured, they all became devoutly Christian. And this was suppressed.

Worse, it is impossible to understand even their early works, English literature generally, except in the context of Judeo-Christian cosmology. Most art is religious art; it almost has to be, to be true art, for true art requires profundity. Yet this Judeo-Christian background was never taught, or even referred to. Instead, everything was read through the lens of Freudianism, or feminism, or Marxism, or structuralism, or Jungianism, or queer theory, or postcolonialism, or whatever intellectual fad was on offer. None of them coming near the point; all of them treating the writer himself as some kind of idiot who had no idea what he was actually saying.

English composition was also mistaught: I had to unlearn many of the supposed rules of grammar and composition learned in high school to become a professional editor and writer. Because they produce bad writing. Indeed, the fact that most people are taught how to write badly gave me my careers as an editor and writing coach. Some of the most egregious examples of classroom malpractice in writing have been collected in a book famous among editors, titled “Miss Thistlebottom’s Hobgoblins.” Most teachers have no idea how to write; and can only be trusted to apply rigid rules, which are invented purely for this purpose.

Fraudulent history was probably less common in my day than now. But the worst was the lie about Social Darwinism. We were taught, without explanation, that Social Darwinism was a misapplication of Darwin’s theory to human society. And I am embarrassed to remember that I bought this.

Darwin himself was a raging social Darwinist. And it is hard to see how his theory does apply to human society.

Darwin is the father of Nazi race theory. They were, they said, aiding the evolutionary struggle. War was the evolutionary struggle; the superior races would win, and evolve into a new, more powerful species.

The real atrocities of European colonialism in the latter half of the 19th century, the days of Heart of Darkness, were also due to Darwinian science. Nobody told us. Instead, longstanding and intrinsic Western cultural chauvinism, or even Christianity, were blamed.

And we were taught that the Christian opponents of Darwin were upset because his theory contravened a simple-minded literal reading of the Book of Genesis, the “seven days of creation.” His Christian opponents, such as William Jennings Bryan, were opposed to his theory primarily because they saw it militating against ethics, altruism, and human equality, and logically leading to racism and a war of all against all.

All this was swept under the carpet. 

As was the fact that the progressive movement, the political left during the first half of the Twentieth Century, embraced eugenics, racial segregation, government control of the economy, social regimentation, and to varying degrees, Mussolini and Hitler. We were taught instead that the Fascists and Nazis were “far right.” 

We were of course indoctrinated into the anti-Catholic “Black Legend.” We were taught of the Inquisition and the Crusades as though the former was a witchhunt, the latter a pogrom or a holocaust. Everyone was somehow given the impression that Galileo was burned at the stake, for asserting heliocentrism.

Most grievously, once I left Catholic grade school, once in high school and above, they gave us all to understand that belief in God was marginal, optional, a matter of faith and of personal opinion. This is grossly wrong: most great philosophers since Aristotle and Plato have asserted and offered proofs of His existence. His existence is the one bit of knowledge about which we can be most certain; more certain than of the existence of the material world, or of our own memories. This is also the most important thing to know, without which nothing else matters. This alone makes the malpractice of the public schools criminal and civilization-destroying. 

Solution: school vouchers, bust the ed schools, and let parents set up religious schools.

On Evil People

 

This video seems to me to be pretty accurate. And the best thing about it is that it does not fudge the issue with terms like "narcissist." "Evil" is more accurate.

Trudeaunomics: Lowering Inflation by Raising Taxes

 

Justin Trudeau committed a misstep that may end up in the history books, or at least in the lore of Canadian electoral politics, this week. He threatened the big food chains that, if they did not do something to stop the rising food prices, he would slap a new tax on them.

Raising food prices yet again.

It is an embarrassment that Canadians ever voted for him, but it seems as though everyone is now embarrassed by him. It took an alarmingly long time, but folks generally are at last seeing through his tiresome act. “The Canadian people expect …. They know we have their backs…. And that’s exactly what we will do.”

And the inevitable scapegoating. 

If he's going to be a clown, he could at least be funny.

The only anti-Conservative memes I see recently online are to the effect of “Yeah, what Poilievre says sounds great, but he will not deliver.” And “Don’t vote Tory just because you are mad at the Liberals. Ask Ontario.” 

Neither gives a reason for voting Liberal; both concede that the Liberals are awful. 

Why not vote for the mere chance of something better?

And that cannot be the NDP, who simply support the Liberals.

That so, what’s your alternative?

Why We Can No Longer Get Along

 

Acceptable

Unacceptable.

Years ago, on an email list that shall remain nameless, I expressed some dissatisfaction with the government interfering in some way in free markets. This in a resolutely left-wing milieu.

There was no immediate backlash. Instead, they wanted to know if I was a Randite, a follower of Ayn Rand.

It was when I objected to Rand’s philosophy as immoral that the backlash began. Had I been an objectivist, it seems it would still have been okay.

So the issue that divides the left and right is not really free markets vs. collectivism, or big government vs small government, as one might have imagined.

Similarly, when people learn I am a vegetarian, their first question is whether it is for health reasons. Why is this the inevitable question? Why does it matter?

Because people do not resent vegetarians if they do it for health reasons. If they do it for moral reasons, I can attest, another’s vegetarianism is indeed resented.

Along the same lines, why do so many object so much to members of minority religions evangelizing them at their door? At a minimum, the Mormons or the Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Salvation Army do it of good heart; they want your fellowship, and are trying to save you from Hell. What could be a greater kindness?

The problem is that a growing number of people have very guilty consciences. Those who have a guilty conscience will hate anyone bringing up the subject of right and wrong. They will even hate anyone who acts morally.

To the point of crucifixion.

This explains the current breakdown in civil discourse. The US even seems to be barrelling toward civil war.

The same principle can explain the eternal persecution of the Jews. The Jews, after all, invented/discovered ethical monotheism. They personify and embody The Moral Law.

It also explains the familiar saying, “No good deed goes unpunished.” Which those who have lived to my age can generally attest is true. Good people will appreciate a good deed; but many bad people will want to hurt you for it.

And it explains why it is those who were most favourably disposed towards Canada’s Indians, Sir John A. Macdonald, Edgerton Ryerson, the Catholic Church, are now so defamed and their statues toppled; in America or Britain, those who were most openly against slavery, like Thomas Jefferson or Sir Henry Dundas, are those condemned as slavers—and not the advocates of slavery.

The usual charge against all moralists, as in these cases, is “hypocrisy.” Which does not apply here at all. . Hypocrisy means holding others to a higher standard than oneself. Believing in and advocating morality is not a claim of personal sinlessness. It is those who old moralists to a higher standard than themselves for believing in the importance of morality who are hypocrites.

I fear a pending housing crisis in hell.

Lost in the Land of Frogs

 

Dr. Theresa Tam is calling for us all to get masked up once again, and take a new vaccine. Covid is back.

This might seem odd, given that studies now show that wearing a mask does nothing to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, and previous vaccines seem to have done more harm than good. So why would Tam give such apparently bad advice?

Some are inclined o believe there is a government conspiracy here to get us all accustomed to taking orders. 

I say, never ascribe to malice what can more easily be explained by a fairy tale.

The relevant fable here is Aesop’s, of the frogs who wanted a king.

The frogs were tired of governing themselves. So they sent a petition to Zeus asking for a king.

To keep them quiet and make them think they had a king he threw down a huge log, which fell into the water with a great splash. The frogs hid themselves among the reeds and grasses, thinking the new king to be some fearful giant. But in a short time the younger frogs were using him for a diving platform, while the older frogs made him a meeting place, where they complained loudly to Zeus about the government.

So Zeus now sent down a crane to be king of frogland. He gobbled up the poor frogs right and left. 

At last the frogs believed they had a real king, and were content.

The government knows a new strain of the virus is coming. A lot of people are likely to get sick. Some will die. And the people will raise a hue and cry, “Zeus, why didn’t the government do something?” So the government takes some random but plausible action, ideally something that sounds drastic. People will still sicken and die, but the government will not be blamed. Best too to propose something that requires general compliance. Then the government can scapegoat the public for not doing it, or at least not all doing it—for inevitably, not all will do it. 

The frogs fall for it every time.

For the same reason, you are never going to leave a doctor’s office without some prescription.

Another similar story also in the news: the Peel Regional School Board has been pulling all the books from school libraries that were published before 2008, and sending them off to landfill, n the premise that nothing written before that date is “inclusive.” 

This sounds like something out of 1984, an attempt to memory hole our past. 

But the more likely explanation is simpler. The provincial government issued a directive that school libraries cull any book that is not “inclusive,” with special attention to books published before 2008.

Now, what is a school librarian to do? What is and is not “inclusive” is subjective, and what counts as “inclusivity” seems to change hourly. A current example: Disney decided the politically safe move was to remove the dwarfs from their Snow White remake, because they were told by one dwarf this was an obnoxious stereotype. Now they are under the gun for excluding dwarf actors.

In any case, reading or researching every book in the library in order to make an informed judgment of this sort would require a lot of dog work and a lot of mental effort.

The safe and convenient move, is to scrap anything published before 2008. People can’t object to what isn’t there.

Unfortunately, it turns out that empty shelves also look bad. 

Still No Unmarked Graves

 

Thread by @jonkay on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App

That's the Ticket

 

Canada has a convenient outlet now for escaping the current atmosphere of growing social dysfunction and government overreach: Pierre Poilievre; with Max Bernier too helping move the Overton window. The US seems in worse shape.

Most Americans, according to polls, do not want to see another matchup between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. I don’t either. Biden is senile and grossly corrupt. Trump is divisive, so hated by the other side a second administration is likely to increase rather than prevent social strife. But the American system seems to be herding them towards this choice.

The ideal ticket for the Democrats, for ending the strife, would be RFK Jr., with Tulsi Gabbard for VP. A dream ticket.

The ideal ticket for the Republicans is trickier. The all-out assault on Trump from the left makes it essential now that he be at the top of the ticket, to ensure such tactics do not continue. To balance things out and bring peace to the Republican Party, I say the best pick for running mate would be Chris Christie. Christie is a great attack dog; and accepting the nomination would cancel out his criticisms of Trump for the general. For Trump, it would show magnanimity, which might reassure some with TDS. Get into line, and all may be forgiven.

But neither ticket is going to happen, sadly.

Songs of Identity

 

A student of mine is taking a required course in pop music at an American university. His current assignment is to select ten songs that express his identity.

They mean the intersectional categories: gay, straight, transgender, cisgender, male, female, black, white, indigenous, Hispanic. They also mention home town.

One further question they ask is where and how do you listen to the songs.

This makes the narcissistic assumption that people listen to music because it makes them think about themselves; as opposed to thinking it is good music. This might help explain the decadence of contemporary art.

But just for fun, I thought about my own list—of music that might best express my identity:

Sidewalks of New York. Seems to me this is a kind of anthem of the North American Irish. My grandmother used to sing it to me as a child. Which wraps it as well with memories of my grandmother, like remembered tobacco smoke or the smell of lilacs at dusk.

Si Bheag Si Mhor. To me, the essence of Irish music, and I am mostly ethnically Irish, if many generations removed. Something about Irish music always stirs my blood at some deep level, as though there really is a race memory. I also think this is one of the most beautiful melodies ever composed.

The Maple Leaf Forever is my own personal Canadian anthem. Never mind the words; other than the refrain; they are variable. But it is a much more stirring tune than O Canada. 

Complainte pour Ste. Catharine. This speaks of my childhood spent in part in Montreal, of the excitement of that city, and the part of me that feels Francophone. The McGarrigles are, like me, Quebec Irish.

Long May You Run. This is suffused with the spirit of small town Ontario, my other “home town.” Evokes memories of my Gananoque and some Kingston friends, some of whom have not survived. And of the bittersweetness of growing up in the Sixties.

Did She Mention My Name? Gordon Lightfoot’s take on small town Ontario. We have some of the same memories. And of course this evokes memories of a certain someone.

Summer Wages. Memories of mucking about on boats in the St. Lawrence River, not Vancouver Harbour, with my slippery city shoes on. And of how girls in small towns tend to break off relationships over the summer season. Memories of makeshift jobs for which I felt ill-suited. And the cowboy lilt; I spent my infancy intending to be a cowboy, and Roy Rogers was featured on my first schoolbag.

The Faith. All of Cohen speaks to me. We share many memories, somehow. This one expresses our shared feelings for religion, and is to the tune of a cherished inherited chanson, Un Canadien Errant.

The Boxer. I don’t want to talk about it. My wife only knows I sing it in the karaoke parlours with tears in my eyes. 

Ave Maria. Nothing more can be said.

Soll mein Gebet zu dir hinwehen.
Wir schlafen sicher bis zum Morgen,
Ob Menschen noch so grausam sind.

Canticle of the Turning.

A Rap Against Poiliev

 

I don’t see nearly as many leftist posts on Facebook as I used to. Maybe because the cultural tide is turning; maybe because all my old leftist friends have by now unfriended and blocked me. Probably both.

But I saw this one today:

I don’t see nearly as many leftist posts on Facebook as I used to. Maybe because the cultural tide is turning; maybe because all my old leftist friends have by now unfriended and blocked me. Probably both. 

But I saw this one today:

 

The point being attempted, of course, that the Liberal government is much more distinguished and qualified to be in power than the opposition.

But note the obvious anomaly: they are comparing the opposition leader to the deputy PM, not the PM. Justin Trudeau is significantly less formally qualified for a role in government than Poilievre. B.A., B. Ed., short career as a drama teacher. His primary qualifications are simply that he is handsome and is named Trudeau. Poilievre, by contrast, was in the business, learning the political and government ropes, as assistant to Stockwell Day and Stephen Harper as opposition leaders, as a longtime MP, and as a cabinet minister. 

As for Freeland? It takes good marks, but it also costs a lot of money to go to Harvard. It costs a lot of money to go to Oxford as a foreign student, and you have to be rich to be able to stay out of the workforce for that long. Or long enough to write books, or learn five languages. Mostly what we learn from this is that Freeland was the child of two lawyers, while Poilievre was an orphan adopted by high school teachers. Chrystia Freeland, like Trudeau, was a child of privilege.

The Liberals are the party of the ruling elite, and those who doff the cap to them. The Family Compact, the Chateau Clique, the Laurentian Elite. They respect the credentials that show you are a member of that elite, that you have a pedigree. An Ignatieff, a Turner, a Martin, a Trudeau. Tories, by contrast, respect the common man and the self-made man who rose from obscurity by their own effort.

The Tories in Quebec City

 

The Conservative convention has just concluded in Quebec City. I can’t recall when a party convention, absent a leadership contest, ever garnered so much attention. It feels historic. Chantal Hebert, no friend to the right, noted recently on CBC that the last time a governing party was as low as Trudeau in the polls was during the Mulroney era. 

The next election, Mulroney’s Tories won two seats.

The tone was no longer the pusillanimous apologetic tone of Erin O’Toole or Andrew Scheer. There was a large banner behind the rostrum reading simply “Freedom.” Speakers returned more than once to the theme of recovering pride in Canadian heritage: “our history must be celebrated, not apologized for nor cancelled.” “We should be proud of the flag on our soldiers’ uniforms. This is the flag that should be flying from government buildings.” “Those leaders who build Canada should be celebrated, not toppled.”

In French: <<new immigrants must understand that Canada’s history is now their history. They must adopt our traditions. We must not listen to those who, like Mr. Trudeau, say that Canada has no basic culture.>>

And Poilievre himself: “English Canadians can learn this from Quebec—and I’m saying this deliberately in English-- Quebeckers do not apologize for their culture, their language, or their history.”

Poilievre and other speakers made many references to Quebec, and Quebec politics. This made sense since the convention was held in Quebec. But then too, why did the party decide to hold their convention in Quebec? It seems that Poilievre and his team are making a point of seeking Quebec support, their weakest region. This suggests confidence and a hope of running up the score.

There was also recognition of the Freedom Convoy: “If Canadians feel strongly about something, the prime minister should listen; not attack and insult them…. If thousands of Canadians feel strongly enough about something to get in their vehicles and drive all the way to Ottawa, the prime minster should pay attention.” And this got a standing ovation.

Poilievre showed his rhetorical brilliance, leading off with a story. Fine rhetorical touch, referring to the garage as “Herb’s Garage.” Make it personal; refer to an “everyday Canadian,” one of the “common people.” And one who has lost his business. He cleverly insinuated that his wife, whose first language is Spanish, was a Francophone (“What’s Ana, a smart and beautiful Quebecois, doing with this Anglophone wearing glasses?”). His praise of his wife, and her speech on his behalf, pointed cruelly to Trudeau’s marital troubles. He skillfully used alliterative phrases like “powerful paychecks,” “affordable food.” Inflation was “a silent thief, quietly picking the pockets of the poor…”

It was all devastatingly effective, and Poilievre kept getting interrupted by chants of “Bring it Home!”

We haven’t seen this kind of enthusiasm in Canadian politics since the days of Pierre Trudeau. And it is a very good thing for a country to see this kind of hope and excitement for the future.

On Being Judgmental

 

Ezekiel 33: 7-9

7 So thou, O son of man, I have made thee a watchman to the house of Israel: therefore thou shalt hear the word from my mouth, and shalt tell it them from me.

8 When I say to the wicked: O wicked man, thou shalt surely die: if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked man from his way: that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but I will require his blood at thy hand.

9 But if thou tell the wicked man, that he may be converted from his ways, and he be not converted from his way: he shall die in his iniquity: but thou hast delivered thy soul.

Matthew 18: 

15: But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.

16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.

17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

19 Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning any thing whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven.

20 For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

The postmodernists insist we must never be “judgmental.” We must never accuse others of wrongdoing. This Sunday’s readings demonstrate that this attitude is unbiblical and immoral.

We are all the sons of men. Ezekiel makes plain that this gives us an obligation to point out to others when they are sinning. If we do not, we will be held accountable for their sin. We have aided and abetted it. Above all else, we owe it to the sinner to advise them of their sin.

A point it seems lost on Pope Francis.

At the same time, this obligation is limited to the “House of Israel.” There is, after all, no point in trying to help someone who does not believe, in the first place, in right and wrong, in ethical monotheism. They are bound for hell in any case.

This principle is shown again in the second reading: one has both a right and a duty to point out when a fellow Christian has sinned, against us or against another. If he (or she) does not accept this and seek atonement and reconciliation, he has, by this, demonstrated he is not a Christian and not a brother. He is “a heathen.”

A second common distortion is also revealed by the second reading. The last verse is often misquoted as “wherever two or more of you are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them.” And this is used to stress the need for community over against the individual conscience, and so demand conformity. 

But the original is “two,” then “two or three.” If “one” is excluded from God’s presence, so too is any group larger than three. The ideal unit imagined is something the size of a couple or family, not even a typical church congregation. 

Accepting the authority of the latter is simply the ad populam fallacy. If a larger group automatically has more authority than a smaller group, Christianity itself is disproven.

The point is the presence of love; which necessarily requires more than one, as in the Trinity. 

Hence too no doubt the reference to a fellow Christian at the beginning of the passage, and in general,  as “brother.” The reference is to brotherly love, filos.

Whoever has such love is your brother. Whoever does not, is not.

The Wisdom of the Nursery

 

"Those who do not laugh have bad consciences."

- Brothers Grimm, "The Twelve Brothers."

Wise words from the nursery. Fairy tales and fables are the source of accumulated wisdom over the centuries—that is why they exist and persist. It is parental malpractice not to teach them to our children. They are the furniture of a healthy mind.

This one sentence is of tremendous value as a life lesson. It is invaluable for judging character, and it is a valuable lesson not to go down the path of dishonesty yourself—you will never laugh freely again.

Other essential lessons, too easily never learned, hard to convey otherwise, are told by Andersen’s “The Princess and the Pea,” “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” Aesop’s “The Frogs Who Wanted a King,” “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.”

Longer fairy tales like Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid, have been obscured because too easily adapted by those with no interest in the original moral. Disney had a tendency in its animated versions to make them all about finding romantic love. “One Day My Prince Will Come.” Not in the mind of the original Snow White. 

Everyone thinks that the story of the princess and the frog is that the princess overcomes some initial revulsion to kiss the frog, and this turns the frog into a handsome prince. So don’t judge by appearances in seeking a life partner, right? But that is not in the original: the princess never kisses the frog. She throws him against the wall. Don’t judge by appearances, yes, but there are other things also going on. This is not about romantic love.

The first failure of our education system is that fairy tales and fables, in the original, are rarely any longer taught.

More on the Sound of Freedom

 

It sounds incredible--but these are credible official sources.

Life and Stuff

 

Everyone in this world is engaged in a hard struggle. That is what the world is for. Some against external adversity, poverty, discrimination; but those who have had it easy have a struggle within themselves, against their own base instincts and cravings. It’s the one or the other, or both.

Here's a Conspiracy Theory for You

 

A smiling face

Scott Adams has pointed out that, once you set up a secret service, it is only a matter of time before they take over the government. You are sending them large sums, with little democratic oversight, or oversight of any kind—because of the need for secrecy. They essentially do whatever they want. It is only a matter of time before these folks seize their opportunity to control government.

The KGB, or what was the KGB, has been in control of Russia for some time. Putin was their guy; before him, Andropov.

Assuming that the CIA, FBI, and/or associated agencies is already in control in the US explains a great deal. It explains why the Democratic field last time folded abruptly before Super Tuesday in favour of Biden. Something was obviously happening behind the scenes, something well-coordinated and with the ability to reward and punish--with greater ability to do that than the eventual nominee. It explains why the Democrats’ Iowa caucus was botched—it was producing the wrong result. It explains why the Democrats went for Biden and Harris, both incompetent party hacks; best to have compliant people, known good soldiers, with no fixed opinions of their own. It explains why they hated Tusi Gabbard, the Democrats’ most attractive candidate last race. She had principles, and so would not be easily controlled. Bernie Sanders was obviously controlled opposition, never meant to win, just to make it all look legit. The minute he was on the cusp of victory, twice, in two races, he folded. It explains who was able to get to Jeffrey Epstein, and how they had the means; it explains many unexplained and improbable suicides by Clinton aides and various political operatives. It explains the apparent rigging of the 2020 election in various ways; after rigging the media coverage, suppressing the Hunter laptop, and forging evidence of a Trump-Russia connection, Trump was still winning on election night. So they suspended the counting, started again next morning, and, miraculously, reported all kinds of extra ballots, all supporting Biden. It explains how determined they are to get Trump out of the race, by any means necessary: like Gabbard, he is not controllable. 

Occam’s Razor begins to argue in favour of such a conspiracy: it is the simplest explanation of many observed facts. Including the fact that “conspiracy theories” are now taboo.

RFK Jr. believes the CIA was involve in the assassination of his uncle JFK. He claims his father thought so too. He believes this is why the relevant documents have still not been released, sixty years later. 

That might have been the point at which they first seized control.

In Canada, there are signs of a similar conspiracy; growing signs. The ability of Andrew Scheer to overtake Maxime Bernier for the Conservative leadership looks possible, but surprising. Yes, there are always factions playing dirty tricks behind the scenes. But Bernier, as we have seen since, was a bit of a loose cannon; Scheer, a former House Speaker, was compliant and agreeable, a smiling face. The abrupt fall of Scheer looks equally odd, as did the sudden withdrawal from the race of all the top candidates except Peter MacKay, within a couple of weeks, very like the coalescing around Biden in the States. The more so since at least two of them eagerly ran in the next contest. O’Toole looks like he was controlled opposition. He unexpectedly won nevertheless; but then embraced the MacKay platform. He was a good soldier; he could be allowed to run because he could be counted on to do what he was told.

There seemed again a heavy-handed effort to prevent unwanted candidates from running to succeed O’Toole. This time the deck seemed stacked in favour of Poilievre. This is a bad sign.

Tom Mulcair’s loss of the NDP leadership also looked highly suspicious. He hadn’t won power, but the NDP cannot expect that; he seemed their best candidate, and deserving of another shot. It looked to many observers as though the vote that ousted him was rigged. 

And Jagmeet Singh’s dogged commitment to supporting the Trudeau government no matter what does not seem to make any electoral sense for the NDP--as though he is taking orders behind the scenes, and the voters and winning votes are not his main concern. Rather like those candidates in the US who now no longer even bother to get out and campaign. It’s all, as Stalin said, in who counts the votes, not in who votes.

Trudeau himself resembles Biden in being incompetent in the job, and obviously not qualified. He’s not interested in governing, just in acting the part. The very sort you want, if you are controlling things in the background.

Interestingly, though, the security services seem to have withdrawn their support for Trudeau. It was someone from the security services who blew the whistle recently on Chinese election interference. 

We may have two warring factions. Which would be relatively lucky for Canada.