Ending Poverty by Ending the Poor

 

Influencers

 

Ramakrishna

I challenged a Chinese student to reflect on the influences on his thinking: whom did he trust? Whom did he accept as an authority?

It is a useful exercise in these times, when authorities seem untrustworthy. It is time to reestablish our bedrock.

So I propose to outline my own influences.

I cannot trust the government. I cannot trust the priests, bishops, cardinals, or even the pope. I cannot trust the legal system. I cannot trust the academy. I cannot trust “the science.” I cannot trust the professions. I cannot trust my doctor. I cannot trust artists.

But there are still the older authorities, who, although dead, can speak to us. There are the great minds of the past.

First is Plato’s concept of the ideal forms. I believe it is absolutely true, vitally important, and generally suppressed. As Blake said, the mind must enter this world as a garden fully planted. I do not trust Plato on politics. Politics and metaphysics take a different kind of thinking; a philosopher who is good on one seems inevitably bad on the other. 

On politics, I trust John Locke. I’d add John Stuart Mill on freedom of speech, and Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence. Everything good in government can be extrapolated from these.

But I think Locke’s ontology and epistemology is absurd.

George Orwell is also an influence in politics. Milton Friedman is an influence in economics.

Probably my main influence among philosophers is Descartes. I think his conclusions in the Meditations are the foundation of all possible knowledge, and definitive on the nature of the human soul. I then accept Berkeley’s resolution of Descartes’ “mind-body” conundrum: that is, how these categorically different spheres of being, mind and body, can interact. Simple: there is no body. I do not believe anyone can refute this. Blake: “the body is that portion of the soul perceptible to the five senses.”

William Blake has also been a profound influence on me. He was really my door into philosophy, and into monotheism. He is usually thought of as a poet, or if not that, an engraver. But he was a universal genius.

I believe Anselm’s ontological proof of the existence of God is irrefutable. But it is only one of many; I also find Craig’s Kalam cosmological argument irrefutable.

The Greek myths, Aesop’s fables, Shakespeare, Dostoyevsky, and the fairy tales are authoritative on human psychology. Accept no substitutes.

Then there is the Bible. Even if you do not consider it the revealed word of God, you must accept it as all the vital information our ancestors gathered over the millennia, which they wanted to convey to us. If you are going against the Bible, you know you are wrong.

Confucius’s Analects are also authoritative. They have kept China in good order for millennia. Alarms bells should go off if you are clearly going against anything there.

I cannot point to any one other specific source in Eastern thought. I have learned much from Buddhism, and from Hinduism, but in the end it all pointed back to ethical monotheism. As Ramakrishna put it, “I want to taste sugar; I don’t want to BE sugar.”

Scanning the Help Wanted Columns

 It’s laughable, but it’s probably true. Warren Kinsella, who claims to have inside sources, says everyone around him knows it is time for Justin Trudeau to resign as Liberal leader. It is that party’s only hope to “save the furniture.” But the holdup is that they can’t find a suitable new job for him.

This is an unfortunate consequence of electing someone unqualified to high political office. They are bound to cling to it. Other ex-PMs, with law degrees, could easily slip into a position with some top corporate firm. Otherwise, management experience or an M.B.A. might justify a seat on a corporate board. He doesn’t have the academic credentials nor gravitas to look plausible as a visiting professor; the appointment might be more embarrassment than embellishment for a prestigious institution. A job as a lobbyist would be unseemly and look shabby; and, in any case, Trudeau is too egotistic to butter successors up and ask for favours.

 So Trudeau’s tempted to overstay in this job because it seems he will never get another job nearly so good. And it’s not just the money, I’m sure. It’s the blow to his ego. Makes him look like a failure.

Theoretically, the Liberals could appoint him to some cushy position within government. Although, if it were not to some international body, or Governor-General, it would still look like a comedown. But even if Trudeau was appointed to some ambassadorship or the like by a new Liberal leader, it would be barely weeks before the next election. It would become an issue during that election, as Turner’s spate of patronage appointments in 1984 helped sink that Liberal ship. And the appointment would be reversed as soon as the new government came into power, as Mulroney cancelled John Turner’s appointments.

The Liberals are probably looking at a eight to twelve years out of power. That’s a long time to try to make a living as a supply teacher.

Could he be appointed to some sinecure by a helpful provincial government? That’s still a comedown. There is only one Liberal premier in office, Furey in Newfoundland. An appointment in Newfoundland would look fishy, and it is not a big province with many important positions in its purview. And Trudeau has been feuding with Furey, and all the premiers.

He has similarly alienated important foreign leaders: of Italy, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Israel. He has an undiplomatic reputation. No international body is likely to welcome him to a position of leadership, other, perhaps, than the WEF.

The subsidized media might be expected to give him a position as a full-time political commentator or the like. But he has shown no ability to say anything insightful or candid; it would not be a natural fit. The CBC, faced with a new Conservative government, probably wouldn’t dare be so openly partisan. Other outlets probably couldn’t see a business case for it; he’s unpopular, and would compromise their reputation for fairness. Sure, maybe we owe him, but why can’t the next guy take the hit? We’re struggling here. 

You’d think his friends in China or Cuba would offer him something.

Or Disney? How about the lead in a new version of "Song of the South"?

On Just Repeating Prayers Like a Trained Seal

 

Friend Xerxes, former left-wing political columnist, has eschewed politics. I suspect this is because he realized that the left-wing position has become indefensible. Why fasten himself to a dying animal? His latest column is about prayer. In a piece titled “Getting Beyond the Rituals,” he expresses the common Protestant objection to rote prayers and ritual generally. Instead, you are supposed to speak and do from the heart.

I was seduced when younger by this dismissal of rote prayer—after all, surely your heart can’t be in it? And the inevitable result was that I stopped praying. 

“What deadens us most to God's presence,” Xerxes’s source argues, “is the inner dialogue that we are continuously engaged in with ourselves, the endless chatter of human thought… including the chatter of spoken prayer.”

Here “spoken prayer” is being conflated, Improperly, with rote prayer. St. Theresa of Avile would agree that “mental prayer” is better than praying out loud. But that, as the quotation goes on to make clear, is not what Frederick Beuchner, Xerxes’s source, means.

“I keep trying, and once or twice I have been conscious, but not conscious of anything, not even of myself. I have heard a stillness that encloses all sounds, stilled the way whiteness encloses all colors, stilled the way wordlessness encloses all words. I like to believe that once or twice, at times like those, I have bumbled my way into at least the outermost suburbs of the Truth that can never be told but only come upon, that can never be proved but only lived for and loved.”

And my Catholic objection is this: this is not prayer. He is necessarily not conscious, as he claims, of “God’s presence”: he is “not conscious of anything, not even of himself.” Whatever is happening, this allows for no personal relationship with God, which is what prayer is supposed to be about.

Moreover, this amounts, by his own admission, to praying only once of twice in your life. 

In other words, it is an alibi for forgetting about God.

“The Truth that can never be told?” A Truth beyond words? Jesus is the Word; and he is the only path.

I recently came across a map on the internet that sought to divide Europe into two zones: religious Europe and atheist Europe. I presume they had no particular religious axe to grind, but the line they drew was almost exactly the line between Catholic Europe and what had been, since the Reformation, Protestant Europe.

Being filled with the Spirit, being inspired, is great, but it does not stick around. And, without ritual, you are left with nothing. And no way to get it back.

The Peaceable Dominion

 

There are riots on Parliament Hill applauding terrorism.

One of Canada’s great advantages has always been that it is a high-trust society. It is a place where, as Michael Moore once remarked, people did not lock their doors while at home. That used to be true, and that was unheard of just across the border in the US. The old joke was that, in the streets of Toronto at 2 AM, deserted, cars still always stopped at the lights.

This was a land where the police force was a beloved national symbol. It was the land of “peace, order, and good government.” The streets of Toronto were notoriously clean: “New York run by the Swiss.”

This was much to our economic benefit; we saved money on policing, security systems, fraud protections, wastage; the wheels of commerce turned easily, well-greased, without strain. Perhaps more important, it improved our quality of life. Canada was safe and boring and secure. We could spend less time being anxious and looking behind us. We could be polite and friendly to all.

Canada was unusual; almost unique. 

Mass immigration is inevitably destroying this unique Canadian characteristic, almost the essence of Canadian culture. People coming from other countries do not share this same ethic. Almost all other countries are lower trust. In most countries, you do whatever you think you can get away with. To acculturate a new immigrant to the Canadian way takes time, and total immersion in the Canadian milieu. Bringing in too many immigrants at once makes this less likely. Official multiculturalism makes the problem worse. 

Sadly, Canadians are innocent marks in all this; not accustomed to being assaulted or conned, they have grown to be too trusting.

“Canadians are so naïve,” remarked a Korean friend of mine.

Making the nation a candy shop to anyone of ill intent.

And it is not just that other cultures are less socially responsible, less concerned with honour and neighbourliness and social solidarity. It is also that any recent immigrant, especially when the move is to a very different culture, goes a little crazy, or a lot crazy, with culture shock. They will imagine that there are no rules here. Obviously, if the women here wear short skirts, it is because they want to be raped. Or, if not so disposed, they will decide that all the people here are evil. Either way, they will conclude that they can do whatever they want, rather than adjusting to the way things are done here. Multiculturalism again making this much worse. And, in the back of their mind, they can remember, if it doesn’t work out, they can slip away home. So why not live out their fantasies?

Our leaders seem ignorant of these issues; or else they do not care. Perhaps they are deliberately destroying the country.

We need to end multiculturalism. We need to develop systematic assimilation programs. We need to suspend immigration to allow newcomers time to assimilate. And we need to lock our doors.

Demonic Activity

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Envy and lust were at work here.

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

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

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

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

Where does this all end?

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

Batra on Israel vs. Iran

 

Lilley on Pro-Terrorism Demonstrations in Ottawa

 

It's All Coming Out

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Evidence of Mass Graves

 

Tucker Carlson on UFOs

 

1847

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carlson on Trudeau?

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

The Deep State Took Out Nixon?

 

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

Culture and Civilization

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But we also seem to be losing that safety hatch.

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

Consider the events of October 7.

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

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

Tucker Carlson Outlines the Problem

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

With a Bullet

 

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

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

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

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

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

What about:

Run Rabbit Run

Blood on the Risers

Lili Marlene

The D-Day Dodgers

They Say That in the Army

The White Cliffs of Dover

We’ll Meet Again

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

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

Colonel Bogie’s March

Der Fuhrer’s Face

The North Atlantic Squadron

Bless ‘Em All

There’ll Always Be an England

This Is the Army, Mr. Jones

Coming in on a Wing and a Prayer

O How I Hate to Get Up in the Morning

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

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

Trudeau Is Leaving

 

Just putting down a marker.

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

Will it save the Liberal Party?

The Canadian Political Landscape

 

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

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

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

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

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

Government must not decide for us on moral questions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boris the Cat

 

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

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

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

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

            “I wonder if Boris would agree with her.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then where is the concern over aborted children?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

World War III

 

World War III seems to be trending. The recent missile attack by Iran on Israel has been billed by many commentators as its beginning.

It is not. As a matter of pure logistics, Iran can’t invade Israel, and Israel can’t invade Iran. Missiles are expensive, and Israel is pretty good at making Iran waste them—little payoff for the payload. Drones may be a continuing problem; but more for Israeli civilians than for the Israeli military. 

A World War tends to require grand alliances of nations. Instead, this may increase Iran’s isolation. Iran, the Shi’ite power, is the primary strategic threat to the Sunni Arab nations of the Persian Gulf and all points West, including the wealthy and militarily powerful Saudi Arabia. Iran has been meddling in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and the Palestinian territories. It has no natural allies. The big Arab states may take the opportunity to make common cause with Israel against their common enemy.

It may also increase opposition to the regime within Iran. A lot of the recent protest has been on the premise that the government has been spending money on foreign adventures while the people at home are starving. The current strike on Israel may be a show of power by a government that feels cornered; to cow their own people more than Israel.

https://x.com/elicalebon/status/1779685190941679979

I have Iranian friends. I have American friends who have visited Iran and spoken to people there. No Iranians seem to support the current regime. They are desperate for help from abroad to overthrow it, and wondering why it is not coming.

There may be an informal alliance of convenience among Iran, Russia, and China, but they are motivated by no common ideology and no common interests. In fact, their interests conflict.

The real danger is that each local war—Ukraine, now Gaza—gives incentive for the next, as the West’s resources get stretched. Now might be the time for Venezuela to invade Guyana and get away with it; now might be the time for China to invade Taiwan and get away with it.

Just for Fun

 

As Others See Us

 

Not Mincing Words

 

Pierre Poilievre makes his position on Gaza clear.

Scientology Was Right

 

As Others See Us

 

Either/Or

 

Teaching a Chinese student the common logical fallacies, we came to this example:

 

He became confused. “Isn’t that ‘scare tactic’? I don’t see it as an option.”

Which tells you something of the difference between Chinese and American culture. He assumed that supporting the president was indeed synonymous with being a patriotic Chinese, and that if you did not support the president, you were in serious trouble.

And now we must note that Justin Trudeau thinks the same way as the Chinese authorities. Those who do not support him are unCanadian and unacceptable. He accuses them of being under foreign influence, Russian, American, or Nazi; and they deserve to have serious trouble visited on them. They bank accounts seized, their licenses cancelled, held in prison without trial. 

As Others See Us

The Promised Land

 

An Igbo bride.

Canada’s manifest destiny is to be a home for refugees.

That is more or less how it all began, with the UE Loyalists; and continued, with the Highland Clearances and the Irish famine. Even Loius Riel, contrary to popular misinformation that he was trying to keep the land for the aboriginals, had exactly this vision: Canada as a home for refugees. It is the great thing Canada, with its expanses, can do for the world. In so doing, we not only help end the suffering, but also reduce tensions in the land from which the refugees come, since they do not want them. Often, their home countries would be happy to cooperate with “getting them off their hands.”

Imagine, for example, the good Canada could have done if, in the 1930s, we had opened our doors to Jews coming from Germany. 

This is best for Canada as well. Those who come from places they are welcome are most likely to make a firm commitment to Canada and its culture and development. They have no divided loyalties. 

In order to do so, we should stop squandering our immigration quota on mere economic migrants. We should get back to huddled masses yearning to breathe free.

We should favour Christians coming from non-Christian countries. In absolute numbers, Christians are the most oppressed religious group on Earth. At the same time, favouring Christians makes economic and cultural sense. Churches are falling empty and needing to be repurposed or knocked down, the religious art lost or destroyed. This is an economic blow, and a destruction of a significant part of our heritage. Immigrant Christians from other countries could gratefully fill those pews, and keep the structures in good condition.

We should also give absolute preference to all Jews. They are and always have been discriminated against everywhere, and are not safe, as recent events demonstrate, in Israel. This too is to our benefit: Jews are good for the economy and the culture wherever they go. And beautiful old synagogues are also falling empty.

Smaller religions lacking a homeland generally are worthy of unrestricted immigration: the Yazidis, Bahai, Sikhs, Falun Gong, and Parsis.

Muslims are a special case. Although persecuted in many countries, Islam is also uniquely constitutionally prone to persecuting other faiths when it can. No other faiths are legal, for example, in Saudi Arabia. Allowing large-scale Muslim immigration can threaten the security of other faiths in Canada.

There is also ethnic persecution. Tigrayans from Ethiopia; Hakka Chinese from Southeast Asia; Igbo from Nigeria. One group in obvious jeopardy, although it is unfashionable to say so, is “white” South Africans. 

We should not be opening doors to refugees from wars, as opposed to genocides or persecutions. Admitting refugees from both sides, who are simply fleeing the carnage of war, is likely to import the tensions that led to war, and extend the violence to Canadian soil. Admitting refugees from just one side drains it of fighting men to defend it; and those disloyal to their original country in time of need cannot be expected to become model Canadians.

Canadian embassies around the world could be assigned the task of determining what local groups might deserve such special immigrant status; and even coordinate with the local government to remove these “undesirables” without conflict.

Canada would be the richer for it.

On My Noble Ancestry

 

My father always claimed to be descended from United Empire Loyalists. It was a family tradition, passed through his paternal grandmother, whose name was Van Luven. The Van Luvens were supposed to have been early settlers in the Dutch colony of New Amsterdam, and to have owned land in what is now Brooklyn. 

The United Empire Loyalists were Americans who dissented from the Revolution, and relocated  to Canada to preserve their ties to Britain and the crown. It is a thing in Canada, like those in America who claim to have been descended from passengers on the Mayflower.

A nephew recently got his DNA examined, one of those heredity kits. The test turned up no Dutch or Flemish blood. Mostly Irish, then Welsh, then Scottish, a smattering of Scandinavian.

I was delighted.

I have always had a visceral distaste for the UE Loyalists.

We Canadians think of them as admirably loyal to Britain, the crown, and to settled authority. 

After all, other than independence, the American Revolution accomplished nothing. We in Canada also have freedom, democracy, and human equality. 

If you read through the history, though, it is dead sure that Canada would not have these things, if not for the American Revolution. Very likely the UK would not either. The UK extended responsible government to Canada only when they feared that, if they did not, they would lose these provinces just as they lost the lower 13. There were reasons for the Rebellions of 1837.

In this, I have to stand against the UE Loyalists. They were the baddies.

They fought against equality and representative government in Canada, as they fought against it below the border. They saw themselves as the aristocracy. This classism has been a poisonous presence in Canadian history, through the Family Compact and Chateau Clique of the 19th century, up to the current concerns in the West of a “Laurentian elite.” Canada is inclined to be cliquish, in every sphere; and the Loyalists started this. They birthed and represent classism in Canada.

Do I need to elaborate on why privilege by birth is immoral? In the brotherhood of man, people must be judged on their merits and the content of their character, not who their parents were. That is never just; worse still in a nation of immigrants. Racism springs from the same font.

Here in Saint John, the newly-arrived UE Loyalists let only fellow Loyalists own property or operate a business inside city limits. When the Irish came, they had to settle, with the Indians, blacks, Congregationalists, and Acadians, north of the city line. That old line is still visible— on the north side of Union Street, the buildings are all wooden, but for the Catholic Cathedral. On the south side, they are solid brick. Loyalists and their descendants were buried in the city centre. The “Old Loyalist  Burying Ground” is still well-preserved. Others were interred north of the city line, and their graves are built over and no longer marked.

Towns and cities tend to take their character from their original inhabitants, barring some truly overwhelming wave of new immigration. Saint John has been rescued from this classism by Irish immigration in the 19th century, which swamped the original population. 

It gives the place an odd ambience. Everyone does still think in classist terms, but then everyone thinks of themselves as working class. There is no sense that anyone left today is a Loyalist descendant; the Loyalists seem only a mythical presence. Their modern successors are the Laurentian elite, or away in Europe. And we by and large don’t like ‘em. 

Kingston Ontario, another original Loyalist hotbed, did not get a large enough wave of later immigration to wipe out the local class distinctions. There is still a “north of Princess Street” stigma. In Saint John, “north of Union Street” no longer has such stigma. People are proud of coming from the North End. Wanna make something out of it? The Irish who got wealthy did not move out and try to pass; they built their new houses in the North End. Now it has nice neighbourhoods, like my own.

In Kingston, by contrast, it matters. There is also the vague sense among locals that Kingston is the rightful capital of English Canada. Toronto? Ottawa? Upstarts! Montreal? French!

Local people used to be ashamed of being seen at S & R, the local bargain emporium. In Saint John, everyone is proud of a bargain. 

And that is why locals are so determined, like the Van Luvens, to claim Loyalist ancestry. Or the Greenwoods, a local family that gained social prominence after they changed their name from Boisvert. Or former Mayor George Speale, whose real name, whatever it was, would have been Greek. In most places in Canada, a Greek or a Quebecois would not feel called to change their name. 

Now where did the Van Luvens really come from?

The family tradition was that it meant “from Louvain,” a city in modern-day Belgium. But hunting it down online, the web site Igenea says “It's important to note that the exact place called Luven doesn't seem to exist in contemporary maps of the Netherlands or Belgium.” Seeming to suggest the derivation from Louvain is also dubious. 

Even crazier, they write “Van Luven is thought to be a French-Canadian surname, and is found primarily in Quebec and the Maritime provinces.” 

And there is only one family of that name in the Netherlands; suggesting it is not a Dutch surname at all. Just Dutch-sounding.

Igenea gives several possible explanations for the “Van Luven” name other than as a place reference. “Van” in Dutch can also mean “son of.” Luven might be a personal name, although such a name is not known in Dutch. It could be a corruption of the Dutch for “lion,” the national symbol of Belgium. Or for the Dutch word for “love” or “beloved.” Like the English "loving."

That is, “love child.”

Why would a French family have a Dutch-sounding name?

Perhaps for the same reason indelicate body parts are commonly spoken of in Latin: as a euphemism. In the same way we refer to a toilet as a “washroom” or “rest room.” People rarely go there just to wash, or rest. 

Even better if it sounds like a noble title.

Don't Let the Pendulum Hit You on the Way Back

 

It is clear the world is descending into chaos. No truth, no morality, no beauty. Nevertheless, I remain optimistic. 

Not because of any faith in God. Why would God save us from our folly, any more than he saved Sodom and Gomorrah? How can we assume we’re the good guys?

Because of faith in history. 

We have seen cultures go mad in the past, and things did straighten out. They might not if there were some near outsider culture to take over; but I don’t see one on the horizon. The whole world is going mad together. 

The Romantic period, paired with the French Revolution, similarly threw out morality, any sense of abiding reality, and just about any tradition they could get by the throat. Yet it stabilized into the long optimistic peace of the Victorian Era. 

Then there was another time of tumult in the Edwardian period, aka the Jazz age, with art nouveau, then dada, women trying to look like men, Josephine Baker dancing nude, an “eat, drink, and be merry” doomed gaiety. But that settled down into the grim and culturally conservative thirties, forties, and fifties—except for the weird tumorous growth of Nazism and Fascism in parts of Europe, at once a violation of all cultural norms, of notions of truth and morality, and yet imposing social conformity and a rigid code of conduct. But Nazism too was self-limiting.

Back further, the Elizabethan Age in England was riotous; with the ancient verities of Catholicism challenged. Then the Puritans descended and shut things down. 

Then the Restoration was riotous again.

The pendulum swings. 

We can see it swinging already, and some people, like Bud Light, are getting caught out. More will.

My fear now is that it may swing too far the other way. We may get another hybrid tumor like the Nazis; or the Puritans; in reaction and revulsion. 

How safe is it that so much money and power and trust is becoming concentrated in the hands of one man, Elon Musk? He has the money to defy everyone. He has his hands on all the latest technology and technology trends. He may soon be in total control of the public square, if everyone migrates to X. He seems to be a good man; but he is a man. It is well to remember Lord Acton’s axiom. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Or can we really trust Donald Trump? He says good things, and we naturally want to support him in the face of obvious persecution. But how deep is his commitment to anything but power? What is he in this for?

It is dangerous to put so much of our hopes and our trust on one man.

Let’s keep our heads, if we can. 

Eid Mubarak

 

Today is Eid al Fitr. As I always do, I posted a greeting on Facebook for my Muslim friends.

But this year, for the first time, I got some pushback. The following comment appeared almost immediately:

“No. Release the innocent Israeli hostages first. You ‘muslims’ have no right to celebrate when such crimes and so many others are committed in the name of that ‘religion’. It’s not a religion but a scheme to destroy the world.”

Muslim authorities worldwide should condemn the actions of Hamas on October 7 and disassociate themselves from them. Individual Muslims should keep away from any pro-Hamas demonstrations.

Otherwise, what are the rest of us to think? Raping, killing children and holding hostages is objectively evil, not permissible even in a declared state of war., let alone in a surprise attack If Islam can defend and even support this, Islam is objectively evil.

It saddens me deeply to say it.

On Writing Poems that Rhyme

 

At a recent poetry reading, I read a poem that rhymed. The moderator, a local cultural arbiter, reacted  when I finished by saying rhyming a poem was rather controversial. This certainly sounded like public disapproval.

She got immediate polite pushback, however, from one attendedd: “then which side are you on?”

“I like all styles of poetry,” she demurred, “but it’s hard to get a rhyming poem published.”

I had nothing to say. She was undoubtedly correct, after all.

Other listeners, however, seemed to make a point of congratulating me on the poem, insisting they liked rhyme. 

“It’s easier to recite rhymed poetry properly,” one noted.

“It’s easier to remember too,” I added.

Why did the coordinator want to call it out?

Coleridge defined poetry well back at the end of the 18th century: “the best words in the best order.” Each word must come across as the only possible word in that place. This can be for the rhyme, the rhythm, for assonance, for alliteration, for onomatopoeia, or for any other conceivable sound effect; or to evoke a vivid image, to extend a metaphoric conceit, to express an emotion with an apt objective correlative, to make a punch line by reversing expectations, or to make a profound philosophical or psychological (in the true sense) point. Ideally, you want every word to do at least two of these things. Three or more is better.

Rhyme, it is true, has never been a requirement for poetry. Some of the greatest poems do not rhyme. Consider Donne’s sermon, “No Man Is an Island”:

No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.

To be fair, there is some rhyme, but irregular. There is rhythm, alliteration, an extended metaphor.

But one justification for a word is that it forms a rhyme. In principle, a rhymed poem is superior to an unrhymed poem, because it gives the words one more purpose, one more element of symmetry and beauty.

It is also true that readers and audiences prefer rhyme. Robert W. Service is the most successful poet of all time, in terms of sales generated; his best-remembered poems have not just end rhymes, but internal rhymes. 

In a buckskin shirt that was glazed with dirt he sat, and I saw him sway;
Then he clutched the keys with his talon hands — my God! but that man could play.

Of course, the cultural moderators scorn Service for this very reason: because he rhymed, and because he is popular.

Probably the most popular and successful living Canadian poet also rhymes: Dennis Lee. He gets away with it, presumably, because he writes for children:

Alligator pie! Alligator pie!
If I don’t get some, I think I’m gonna die!

According to Michael Posner’s detailed compilation of anecdotes, Leonard Cohen left poetry for songwriting because he was condemned by Louis Dudek for writing in rhyme. He saw there was no future for his passion for words in the poetry community. The joy of songwriting is that rhyme is permitted.

It may be no coincidence that songs, unlike poetry, are still popular.

Why then are the cultural arbiters openly hostile to rhyme?  

Because it takes great skill to write a good rhyme; and not just great skill. It takes a certain amount of inspiration. You rhyme badly, and it sounds inane: doggerel. This happens when the only reason for a word is to achieve a rhyme.

And so there is a natural pressure among professional or wannabe poets, to make their lives easier and their ambitions more attainable, to claim that rhyme is undesirable. Because inspiration can’t be taught, there is pressure on the Fine Arts departments to discount it, in favour of things they can teach the merely average student to do. 

Let these products of the academy or professional poets select for the publishers, as they do, and you get unpopular and mediocre art. Which is why poetry is now moribund.

Here’s a random current poem appearing in my Facebook Feed; selected as unusually good by the League of Canadian Poets:

 

It is more than decent prose; it has good images. But what makes it a poem, as distinct from a passage that might be found in a well-written novel?

There is no rhyme; there is no rhythm, no alliteration, no assonance. The images, while vivid, are not objective correlatives, serve no further purpose, and make no philosophical point. The topic seems trivial: these are not words that need to be said. “Catching the spins like commas” has some alliteration, but does not seem to mean anything. A spin does not really look like a comma. And the alliteration could have easily been better: “catching the curves like commas.” “These blasted rocks are laughing. Their jagged grins zipper shut as you drive by” is verbose. “Blasted” and “jagged” add nothing. “These rocks are laughing. Their grins zipper shut as you drive by” would be stronger.

While there are, I’d say unusually for most modern poetry, no cliches, except arguably for effect (“’A weekend escape,’ you tell yourselves.”) the entire format of interior monologue is itself an almost inescapable modern cliché.

Having nothing else to offer, there is among modern poets a temptation to grab attention by mere lurid detail. Here, the vulture eating the carcass of a raccoon. 

But this is an easy trick, a cheap thrill. Word porn. It gets boring fast.

We need somehow to get around the gatekeepers. My own idea is to create a poetry web page on which readers could vote for the poems they actually like best. With annual publication of the winners.

A White Pill

 

Eighteen Manchurian Candidates

 

Sheila Gunn Reid on X: "WHOA 🚨🚨!!!! No wonder the Liberal gov withheld these CSIS docs until 1 am this morning. "We know that the PRC clandestinely and deceptively interfered in both the 2019 and 2021 general elections." "At least 18 candidates and 13 staff members were implicated in PRC foreign… https://t.co/IpLFPUJ5Wk" / X (twitter.com)

Eyes Wide Shut

 

All the usual sources of authority that we have always relied upon seem to have gone wrong. We can no longer trust cardinals or even the Vatican and the pope to be seeking and speaking truth without fear or favour. We cannot trust governments and ministers to be acting in the public interest. We cannot trust the press to hold them to account. We cannot trust the universities to be dispassionately concerned with the pursuit of knowledge. We certainly cannot trust the secular schools. We cannot any longer hold the fond delusion that scientists are objective and never fudge data, that “science” is an unimpeachable authority. We cannot trust the professions to behave ethically. Who can we trust?

Yet a few figures have emerged. We may not always agree with them; they may not always be right; but they at least seem to be seeking the truth and right. They at least do not seem to be lying and trying to trick us. Joe Rogan, Donald Trump, Tulsi Gabbard, RFK Jr., J.K. Rowling, Elon Musk…

One reason the current feud between Candace Owens and the Daily Wire has become so newsworthy on the right is because it makes the Daily Wire folks look hypocritical—another trusted source of authority selling out to a special interest, Israel. I think this is the wrong take, but it is what is causing the current consternation.

I might add Pierre Poilievre or Nigel Farage to the list. I hesitate, because they are both primarily skilled rhetoricians, salesmen. There is nothing dishonourable in that, but there is room to wonder if they always mean what they say. It is not the place of the rhetorician to be an authority. There are attack dogs, and there are shepherd dogs. 

No doubt there is cause for suspicion of some on the list I do give. How can Donald Trump be taken seriously as a voice against the establishment? He is the establishment: from New York upper society, from an established family, went to the posh schools, a billionaire. Hobnobbing for years with the A-listers. How Can RFK? Who’s more establishment than a Kennedy? How can Elon Musk, the richest man in the world?

But that is exactly why they can speak out: being made, they are not on the make. Being established, they at least stand a chance of being too established to be destroyed for speaking out of turn—although it is obviously being tried, against Trump, against Kennedy, against Rowling, against Rogan. They are brave, but at least have a decent chance of surviving.

Tulsi Gabbard? How does she get away with it? She’s not rich. But she has the female form of riches. She’s too beautiful to be destroyed or silenced.

Many of these have begun speaking out against the establishment “narrative” only recently. Even Trump until 2011 or so was not visibly Republican or a dissenter or on the right. Something is changing. A tide is turning.

If only “establishment” figures are as yet speaking out, this tells us that a good many other people, less invested in the status quo, would also turn against it if they thought they could. A very large number of people, we can deduce, is being cowed into silence and compliance. A further large number of people have been flying monkeys. We begin to see it in the Bud Light and Disney buycotts. 

This may include many supposed authority figures. I think I begin to see signals from the pope himself that he feels trapped and does not necessarily want to be identified with his own recent actions. Benedict, after all, complained of having no real authority over the Vatican bureaucracy. “My authority ends at that door.” Biden certainly looks like a trapped and frightened old man with someone pulling his strings. 

This sounds like a house of cards. People are being silenced and pressganged into lynch mobs out of fear, and there may in the end be little behind the curtain; only a malicious but timid charlatan or two.

If and when the iron hand of cancel culture that is oppressing the many falters, if people like the Rogans, or Trumps, or Rowlings, escape destruction, there will be a revolutionary force released, like steam from a ruptured boiler. 

Let it be soon, O Lord.

Darkness at Noon

 

A leftist friend posts a link to a page from Rolling Stone magazine saying that the upcoming solar eclipse is breeding conspiracy theories on the “far right.” The article is behind a paywall. But the first “conspiracy theory” cited is the only one I’ve seen elsewhere: that the eclipse is a sign of the “end times.”

Why is it that I only ever hear these “far right” conspiracy theories from the left? They never show up on sites the left calls “far right”: The Daily Wire, Steven Crowder, Small Dead Animals, Rebel News, True North, Mark Steyn. Only on the left; yet labelled “far right.”

I suspect left-wing journalists trawl the internet for improbable claims, and when they find one, arbitrarily label it “far right.” Because, after all, anyone who disputes the familiar dogmas on anything is by their definition “far right.” 

The association of the political right with finding signs in the sky significant is surely dubious on any other terms. This is, in a word, astrology. The Age of Aquarius, the Axial Age, and all that bit. Is New Age on the far right now? Has anyone told Marianne Williamson?

It is also clearly not a conspiracy theory. People cannot conspire to move the stars and planets.

The fundamentalist Christian concept of the “End Times” is not a conspiracy theory, either. God is not a conspiracy, by definition; there is only one of him. “Conspiracy theory” is now simply used, just like “far right,” to tar and dismiss any claim or idea disliked by the left.

And speaking of End Times, what makes Protestant fundamentalism either political or specifically “far right”? Only that they dissent from the dominant opinions of folks on the left about life and the universe. Not political issues—except that, to the left, everything is political. The left is intrinsically totalitarian.

For what it is worth, I cannot see a solar eclipse as a special sign from God; except in the sense that all nature speaks of him to us. Although rare, it is as predictable as a celestial clock striking eleven. If God wants to send a warning, I expect some violation of the laws of nature to make the source and urgency clear. 

And as to the end of time, nobody knows the day or the hour. It will come like a thief in the night.

The solar eclipse may have some mass psychological effect. It may make people ready to believe improbable things.

The Genocide News

 

There Is a Counter-Culture Emerging

 

No Love Is Free

 

One of my Chinese students, by chance, brought up another problem with birth control and the current sexual climate that did not occur to me yesterday. He has no desire to spend any time with his classmates, or those of his own age generally, because all they are interested in is hooking up. And this, he rightly sees, is selfish. “Free love” is ultimately profoundly selfish. Aside from taking no thought for possible or eventual children, it sees the partner as an object, no more than a tasty cut of meat. One loves them no more than one loves the cow. It is insensitive to the emotional universe, and deadens the heart within.

As a result, sensitive and intelligent kids like him are left socially isolated. There are no good partners.

Others have also noticed that, given the difference between men and women, “free love” means that women will have sex whenever they want it, but with only about 20% of the men—the most attractive 20%. Who will in turn have little incentive to ever marry and give up this constant attention. So most men get no sex, and most women get no family. Nobody gets companionship.

Ireland Rises

 

The Price of "Free Love"

 

I heard a suggestion recently that the birth control pill is causing serious health issues for women. Moreover, this source argued that it disrupts women’s emotional health by interfering with their hormones. 

So how about banning the birth control pill?

It does seem, after all, that the pill and the “sexual revolution” it inspired have turned out to be disastrous on a social level. People have stopped having children. To compensate and just to keep systems and structures going, governments have turned to mass immigration. Mass immigration has begun to cause serious social problems. Not to mention, it will cause the eventual disappearance of the culture, as efficiently as any genocide. Marriages no longer stay together, causing endless grief and financial ruin to many individuals, parents and children, and tremendous expense to society as a whole. Sexually transmitted diseases are rampant, and the risk of some new epidemic like AIDs is high. People crave crazier and crazier, riskier and riskier sexual thrills. Sex for pleasure turns out to be a dangerous addiction: you want more and more and get less and less out of it. Sexual assault and sexual blackmail is everywhere, as the sexes mingle now in daily life and there are no firm rules or boundaries. Trying to prosecute is always “he said/she said.” Injustice is inevitable, and lives are ruined.

Is it time to reconnect sex firmly to childbearing?

Ban the pill, ban abortion. End no-fault divorce. Make adultery illegal.

We are so eager for social experiments; here’s one to try.

Peace, Order, and Good Government

 

In Shakespeare’s MacBeth, MacDuff flees to England to join forces with Malcolm, the rightful Scottish heir, in hopes of overthrowing the tyrant MacBeth, Malcolm tries to convince him that he would be the worst king possible. It is a subterfuge, but, among other things, it allows Shakespeare to define good and bad government. He summarizes a bad ruler in these words:

“Nay, had I power, I should
Pour the sweet milk of concord into hell,
Uproar the universal peace, confound
All unity on earth.”

The purpose of government is, in a phrase, to keep the peace. It is to promote unity among citizens, to settle disagreements. “Peace, order, and good government,” in the words of the BNA Act.

Multiculturalism obviously goes directly against this, by emphasizing differences among groups of citizens. Pandering to and favouring special interests, whether women, gays, blacks, indigenous people, or some professional elite, obviously goes against this, pitting one group against another. Even any “activist” government goes against this, as any dramatic change is a breach of the peace.

But Shakespeare is surely right about this. The very word “devil,” “diabol,” implies division—to put things apart. Compare “symbol,” to put things together.

The Trudeau government in Canada is thus a classic case of bad government. Trudeau declares there is no Canadian mainstream; there is no Canadian unity, and unity is actually undesirable. He slanders opponents as “Nazi sympathizers,” an “unacceptable fringe.” He picks fights with the premiers and with foreign governments. He panders openly in his rhetoric to any and all special interest groups, from Lavalin to aboriginals. He keeps promising handouts.

More broadly, leftist government today seems to be intrinsically bad government.

When, in the Beatitudes, Jesus says “blessed are the peacemakers,” this is what he is talking about. He is not endorsing pacifism or “peace at any price”; these stances are immoral, and lead to more war. He is endorsing those who make and enforce just laws; for the purpose of laws is to preserve the peace. He is blessing those who, given any social influence, use it justly rather than stirring up trouble. Those who do not gossip or flatter or pander.

All of us are, sooner or later, in such a position—not just those in government. It applies in the family, the essential social unit. An evil parent will play one child against another, sowing tumult and dissent. A decent parent will treat their children openly and fairly, rewarding and punishing only as warranted for their own ultimate good.

This is one more sense in which the Biblical edict “by their fruits you shall know them” applies. Or the story of the blasted fig tree. Whether a man or woman is good or bad is hard to determine. Most evil is done in secret. A good test is to ask, are their children happy, ”well-adjusted,” and on good terms with one another? 

Cornwallis

 

In Halifax, they are busily erasing all traces of their founder, Lord Charles Cornwallis. The rap against him is that he put a bounty on local Indians, payable on submission of either the Indian or his scalp. So he is responsible for genocide.

Except that this was in time of war. In a war, it is rather part of the process to kill enemy soldiers. The bounty was supposed to be payable only for killing or capturing Indian warriors. If the means of mustering men to arms was irregular, this was a guerilla war, with no front lines, in a sparsely-settled territory. Every man might need to defend his home. 

It is also worth noting that the Indians initiated the conflict, in violation of treaties; and that the French at Louisburg were offering bounties for British scalps. 

So if Cornwallis is unmentionable, despite his accomplishments, for such an edict, surely so is, say, Sir Robert Borden, given that Canada used poison gas in World War I in response to German use. In war, if your enemy starts using some irregular or unethical means of combat, you must respond in kind or simply surrender.

But the real reason Cornwallis, with so many others, is being erased, is because of the unworthy human instinct for envy. The great are resented by the small for their accomplishments. For every Kennedy, there are a hundred Oswalds.

Becalmed on the Ship of Fools

 

A sign of how delusional—and immoral—our current society has become: going out for a social evening can feel like walking on eggshells. Just like life in a dysfunctional family, in a dysfunctional society there are many truths you cannot say, and many untruths you are compelled to say. Or else all hell breaks loose.

At a poetry reading Sunday last, for example, we had to begin with a “land acknowledgement,” saying we were grateful to be allowed to exist on the traditional land of three or more indigenous tribes. This is nonsense: the fact that three or more tribes always need to be named illustrates the fact that none had secure possession, and therefore none owned the property. Leaving aside that any residual hypothetical claims to sovereignty were formally renounced centuries ago, in return for compensation. These “land acknowledgements” violate the fundamental principle of human equality: the land was made by God for all. Nobody has a greater claim to it only due to ancestry. Immigrants are not third-class citizens.

Then one poet came up to the stage with a transgender flag hanging out of her pocket, and pointed out that today was International Day of Transgender Visibility. We all had to politely applaud like seals. And then the host came up and apologized for not mention this at the beginning of proceedings. We all had to acknowledge that people can be transgender, and they are oppressed if they are, and this girl was a boy.

But in reality, only words have genders. People have sex, and one’s sex is a physical fact, coded in every cell. Webster’s Dictionary, 1913: “Gender is a grammatical distinction and applies to words only. Sex is natural distinction and applies to living objects.” Human Gender is a nonsense concept. It began as “gender roles,” a feminist claim that one’s behaviour need not be conditioned by one’s sex. That claim itself was demonstrably false; men can’t have babies. But now the horse is out of the barn, has contracted mad cow disease, and is cannibalizing feminism itself.

Then, in conversation, a new friend reveals that both her children have ADHD. But she loves them despite their disability. 

Poor kids. ADD is just having a strong and lively imagination, now stigmatized as a disease. One might as well stigmatize high intelligence as morbid. That’s pretty much what we’re doing. Dangerous, no doubt: being smart and not doing what you’re told needs to be stomped on early, else who knows what these kids might say as they get older? Perhaps that the emperor has no clothes. Yet again, I have to bite my tongue, and leave those poor kids to their Ritalin-addled fate.

Such is life in 21st century Canada. A big reason why I feel compelled to keep this blog: my little sane space.