Happy New Year

 

Enough with the Red Pill; Try a Chill Pill

 

“Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive/But to be young was very heaven.” – William Wordsworth on the French Revolution.

We are in the middle of a revolutionary period now. So far, fortunately, it has been peaceful. Although that has been a close run thing—the ancien regime has resorted to some brutal and disturbing tactics. But it does seem they are now preparing to accept defeat. God willing.

Revolutions are exciting; all things suddenly seem possible. I remember the 60s.

But it is easy to slip into irrational expectations. “We want the world, and we want it now.” 

Then when those in power inevitably cannot meet them, the revolution begins to devour its children. Moderation becomes a dirty word, and upsetting applecarts becomes an addictive drug. Just to get that rush of infinite possibilities again.

A recent tweet on X: “Who needs to worry about Democrats when we have a president elect that won't support the base that supported him. Johnson needs to go, H1B needs to go. Illegals need to go. You want compromise but you aren't offering us anything.”

Demands to deport all illegals have morphed into demands to deport all immigrants. Complaints about Muslim immigrants not assimilating and committing terrorism have moved on to complaints about Indian immigrants not assimilating and littering and being rude.

Talk of an emerging “woke right” seems appropriate. Racism against whites must not be simply replaced with racism against immigrants. The scapegoating must stop. The pendulum must stop swinging.

All men are equal in God's sight. Immigration should be meritocratic. Culture is not race. Assimilation must be the goal.

Shane McGowan's Funeral

 

Happy Christmas.

The Feminist Delusion

 

Pandora

It is a good general principle that anything stated emphatically is unlikely to be true. No one, after all, feels the need to carry placards in the street and shout loudly through a bullhorn “grass is green.”

I knew OJ was a murderer when he answered the question “Did you kill your wife” with “I absolutely did not kill her.” An innocent man would not have said “absolutely.”

This is one reason why the common consensus is almost always wrong. It is formed by those who shout the loudest, and those who simply want to keep the peace will go along.

“Methinks the lady doth protest too much” is thus a good principle.

An example that comes to mind: “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” The women’s movement, from the beginning, insisted that men are of no use to women, and are the disposable sex. A woman could do anything for herself that a man could do.

I submit that women need men more than men need women. The women’s movement began because men no longer needed wives. With mod cons in the home, housework was at best a part-time job. A bachelor could manage it for himself. Hugh Hefner realized this, and launched the “Playboy philosophy.” Women were needed only for sex. Betty Friedan’s essential complaint in “The Feminine Mystique” was that she was bored to death in the suburbs having nothing to do.

As luck would have it, men now hardly need women for sex either, thanks to the ready availability of internet porn. And are beginning to realize it. And women are at last beginning to panic. That they did not decades ago is a testament to how fully women are programmed to follow rather than think things out for themselves: they were perfect victims for feminism’s “consciousness raising” which taught them to scorn men. Leaving, as JD Vance controversially put it, several sad and bitter generations of crazy cat ladies. I know many women like this. If you are honest, and my age, you probably do too.

Women need men not just for protection against other, possibly predatory, men. Nor do they need them just for protection against the forces of nature. Nor to support children financially. Government and the bureaucracy happily stepped in to take over those roles. They were delighted to do so, because they wanted power, and this was a major extension to their power. Now “the personal is political.” In this, feminism has always been essentially totalitarian.

Women also, and more vitally, need men spiritually. Women are programmed by God or evolution to seek and need guidance, and not to think for themselves. This is exactly what you are not allowed to think or say--because it is obviously true. This female mental flexibility is essential in order to form the family bond—the alternative would be constant arguments and breakups, to the great emotional detriment of both parties, and the great hazard of children’s welfare. Which is of course pretty much what feminism has brought us. 

That women need men as a mental and emotional anchor is why traditionally women were married off at an early age, while men commonly married later. Men could stand years alone while they built up a nest. A woman really could not do for any time without a husband or a father. Women without a strong lead tend to lose direction, and flounder. There is a reason girls, more than boys, report a difficult adolescence, with risks of suicide, self-harm, anorexia, and depression. In that gap between guidance by father and guidance by husband, they are cast adrift. It is also the reason ghosts and table-knocking, “spiritualist” phenomena, have since Victorian times been understood to centre somehow around some adolescent girl in the home. It is the reason irrational emotional outbursts and even dramatic delusions and hallucinations used to be generically called “hysteria,” from the Greek word for uterus. Young and single, or abandoned, women, were prone to them. It is the reason witchcraft was considered a primarily female preoccupation in Europe, usually involving old and unmarried women living alone; as shamanism is a female occupation in Korea today. This is again why Saint Paul did not want women speaking in Church, and told them to “obey your husband.” Why traditional Jewish or Muslim jurisprudence required two female witnesses but just one male. It is why women are not ordained as priests. It is why many cultures make some mythic woman straying beyond male oversight the source of all trouble entering the world: Eve in the Bible, Pandora in Greek myth, Sophia in gnostic cosmology. There are similar legends among the North American Indians (“First Nations”). 

Lacking the guidance of a designated man, women are liable to listen to serpents, or demons, or whatever ideology knocks on the front door. They are naturally programmed to be a “help-meet.”

We are acting with great recklessness in ignoring this truth in modern times. There should be no surprise that we are seeing a radical decline in women’s happiness and mental health.

And, worse, we are seeing civilization itself being knocked out of its orbit.

The Cherry Tree Carol

 

A special favourite of mine. I once made it the basis of a Christmas play. Sung here by three Jews.

On the Work of Christmas

 

An interesting take, by Howard Thurman, on the proper “Work of Christmas.”

“To find the lost,
To heal the broken,
To feed the hungry,
To release the prisoner,
To rebuild the nations,
To bring peace among brothers,
To make music in the heart.”

It is not quite what Jesus says in the Bible, however.

His actual commission to the apostles was to cast out demons, heal the sick, preach the gospel, and baptize. Don’t see that here.

“Find the lost” and “Heal the broken” might cover this, but they are at best open to misinterpretation. If “find the lost” equates to casting out demons, it seems an odd way to put it. In the Bible, God finds the lost sheep; it seems presumptuous to suggest the individual Christian should or could.

Feed the hungry? It is incumbent on us to feed the hungry, true. Not just for Christians, but as a universal moral obligation. But Jesus also said “The poor you shall have always with you”; and that worship must be given priority over giving money to the poor. This is not the essence of the Christian mission as such.

“Release the prisoner”? He never says that. He says we are to visit those in prison, which is quite different. This would presuppose that laws and legal systems are illegitimate. Not in the Bible.

It is true that in Luke 4, Jesus says of himself, that he has come “to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free.” But he is by this identifying himself as “the anointed one,” the Messiah, an exceptional circumstance--not giving a commission for Christians during normal times. He is describing a general amnesty, as in Jubilee year.

“Rebuild the nations?” Jesus stresses the separation of salvation and politics: “render to Caesar what is Caesar’s.” He confounded the Jewish expectation that the Messiah would be a political figure. He did not commission his followers to re-found the nation of Judea, nor to somehow reform the Roman Empire.

“Bring peace among brothers”? This is almost a flat contradiction of what Jesus does say: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’—a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.”

You might point to him saying, in the Beatitudes, “blessed are the peacemakers.” But the word translated as “peacemakers” is in the ancient documents most commonly applied to Roman Emperors. It seems therefore to refer to those who keep the peace in the sense of a police force or a “justice of the peace”: by mediating disputes fairly, without fear or favour, and by catching and punishing wrongdoers.

So—bring peace among brothers in that sense: by throwing one of them in prison. So much for “Releasing the prisoners.”

“To make music in the heart.” I think Jesus did command us to create art, when he told us to be salty and to shed light; as does the Book of Genesis, giving us a commission as gardeners and potters; as does the Book of Revelations, envisioning the New Jerusalem as a city made of precious gems. But why only “in the heart”? That seems to be there to negate the point. Music in the heart is not audible to others; art that is invisible is not art. Jesus commanded us instead to “let your light shine,” to let everyone see your works, to give light to everyone in the house; to be like a city on a hill.

So it is subtle. Am I nitpicking?

I think not. Friend Xerxes quotes Thurman's poem as justification for a program of left-wing "social justice" as he proper expression of Christianity.

It seems like an attempt to subvert the gospel to worldly ends.

On the Fourth Day of Christmas

 

The Annexation Tango

 

I am now seeing a growing chorus of Canadians on X pointing out the advantages of annexation to the States. 

Really. It only took a few days for Trump to create a groundswell of support for the idea. He has an uncanny knack for “reading the room”; in this case without even being in the room. What this really is, I think, is the essential talent of prophecy. As Blake said, the prophet does not really predict the future, but sees the present more clearly than others. Trump is uncommonly unburdened by the delusions that blind most of us.

The best argument to my mind is the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. It is not enough to get rid of Trudeau. Trudeau has demonstrated that the protections supposedly written into our Canadian Constitution are not worth the sheepskin they are printed on.

It’s all about what deal could be negotiated. Kevin O’Leary is proposing a union like the EU, with a shared currency and shared passport. Trump has suggested Canada come in as one state.

My problem with O’Leary’s suggestion is that, for such a union to be palatable to the much larger US, it would really mean the US made the rules, and Canadians would have no vote, so long as we stayed independent.

My problem with Trump’s suggestion is that it would offer no venue for Quebec to preserve its linguistic and cultural distinctiveness. And Canada would be underrepresented in Congress in relation to its population, with only two senators.

Ten new states, each of the provinces joining as states, would cause the least disruption and be easiest constitutionally. However, this would give Canada more representation than its current population would warrant; the US might well object. A compromise: five new states, and three new territories: British Columbia, Canada West (Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba), Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada (New Brunswick, PEI, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador). This would give Canada Senate representation matching its population, recognize regional differences, and preserve the name “Canada” in at least two new states. 

The main objection, Stateside, will no doubt be that Canadian voters tilt left, so they will skew American politics. But perhaps not; having experienced a hard left government in Trudeau, Canadians may be reliably right wing from now on. Just as Cuban refugees or Vietnamese are in the States, or the Poles and Hungarians are in the EU.

The Christmas Hangover

 '

The great day tis past us, and it's time for a bit of less celebratory music.

Christmas is a painful time for many.

A toast to all lost souls.

The H1-B Controversy

 

A controversy has blown up on the right over the H1-B visa program. Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy want to expand it, to recruit the best talent from overseas, particularly in the tech sector. Other MAGAnauts object that this suppresses wages and takes jobs away from Americans.

I am with Musk and Ramaswamy, if the tech sector is targeted narrowly. The US and Canada need immigrants. We need them because women are not having enough babies. The only question is how to select them. This is about the best way to select them. Being really good at IT, and to a lesser extent engineering, is a good test of raw IQ. This is why, in their hiring, the big tech firms don’t look at formal qualifications, but give prospective employees what is in effect an IQ test.

Aside from needing immigrants generally, the US and Canada need to maintain and expand their advantages in the high tech sector. Both their prosperity and their security depend on being ahead in this race. It makes good sense to use their attractiveness to immigrants to recruit the best talent.

Immigrants with high IQ are most desirable for many other reasons. Besides inventing things, they are likely to contribute greatly to the culture: to the arts. They will make more money than average and generate more revenue to fund government programs. They will start businesses and employ people. People with high IQ are far less likely to commit crimes and especially violent crimes. And hey, they will marry and improve the gene pool.

Those opposed to the idea in the US point to Canada, and say that Canada has tried a similar program, with our point system for prospective immigrants, and it has done nothing for the local high tech sector.

Canada’s system is indeed a cautionary tale. Unfortunately, it does not select for IQ, but for formal academic credentials. When this is applied to the Third World, where most are too poor to get to college or university, let alone a college of university in Canada, and qualifications can essentially be bought, it does not select for high IQ, but for membership in the current ruling class of that country. 

The reason countries in the Third World are poor is that they have a corrupt and selfish ruling class.

Such a system imports this corrupt and selfish culture directly into the Canadian upper classes, thereby importing all the problems of the Third World.

We need to consult the tech industry, and use the tests they have developed for job applicants, to pick immigrants.

Happy St. Stephen's Day!

 

Treasonous Talk?

 

Not shown: Greenland, Panama Canal Zone, Hawaii

Donald Trump appears to actually be serious about annexing Canada. He tweeted about it again several times on Christmas Day. So much for those who dismissed as a joke. Ha ha. He’s pushing the Overton window. Some Canadians on X are predictably getting vitriolic in response.

For my part, I think it is a good thing for all of us in Canada if Trump and the US administration shows interest in annexing Canada.

Justin Trudeau began clearly acting dictatorially in about 2021. I said then that the ultimate guarantee of Canadians’ freedom was the US: they would, one hoped, not tolerate it going too far. They would invade to save us. But I was worried then that they might not, that they might not care enough what happened to Canada, and would not want a large body of left-leaning voters. After all, they let Cuba go Communist.

So it is great news that the US really is interested. 

This holds Canadian governments’ jackboots to the fire; we now have a competitive marketplace for Canadians’ allegiances. Future Canadian governments will have to think twice about riding roughshod over the citizenry as they have been doing increasingly—even if they can rig the elections. The central government will also need to be more careful about bullying any one province, like Alberta. An individual province too could opt to leave for the US. In most cases, splitting Canada in two.

It is useful as a threat. And if it actually happened, it would be nothing catastrophic. We are culturally almost the same. I was just watching a video of the ball drop in Times Square. In earlier years, and I imagine still mostly now, everyone in Canada was glued to the set to watch this same scene every New Years: acknowledging that our shared culture was centred there. And at the moment the new year flashed, the unmistakable strains of “Auld Lang Syne” played by Guy Lombardo and his Royal Canadians at the Roosevelt ballroom. “The sweetest sound this side of heaven.” We were and are one culture, awkwardly divided by a hardening border. Should we be, any more than East and West Germany, or North and South Vietnam, or North and South Korea? The conflict that kept us apart, an argument between empire and republic, has been a dead letter for many generations.

 Lower taxes, batter protection for our rights, greater mobility rights and career opportunities, and better security against any real foreign threats. And some families no longer separated.

Trump is doing Canadians a big favour.

It Being on Christmas Morning

 

A Few Predictions

 

We have had a dark four years, since 2020. But there is every reason to believe the worst is over, and the dawn is breaking again. You can see it everywhere. 

Trump takes office January 20th, but his election has already obviously changed the mood. The sane among us now are filled with energy, and the forces of darkness and confusion are on the defensive. 

Poilievre is likely to assume power by about March, following closely on Trump. Some worry he is secretly too moderate, different from the WEF crew only in rhetoric. But even if this is true, events will pull him along. Trump has yanked the Overton window right into the next room. Milei in Argentina is setting the pace, showing what can be done. Trump will want to do whatever Milei has succeeded in doing, and one-up him. Poilievre will need to maintain his street cred by matching them. There will be a general rush now to get further right before the crowd does, just as for years there has been a rush to the left.

This can certainly go too far, as the movement left did, but we have a lot of ground to make up before that happens.

Meantime, the culture is also healing. Disney and other woke corporations and advertisers are tanking. Prominent people are converting to Christianity, and Catholicism, at an accelerating rate. Awkward that at the same time the pope is an apostate, but it may be that the US leading world culture. Francis may fall in line, being firstly a politician. Or he may be moved to resign. The next conclave may find it urgent to choose someone unimpeachably orthodox. This seems to me likely.

I predict an end to the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. I predict that the Trump tariffs on Canadian goods really will be imposed. They will be lifted after negotiations with a new Canadian government. I predict that Trump will not occupy the Panama Canal Zone, but will negotiate a much-reduced passage fee for US vessels, and protections against Chinese influence; perhaps the US will return as a joint operator. I predict that, at least by the end of his administration, he will have managed to buy Greenland from Denmark. I predict that mass deportations will become the norm across the developed world; and doors will be shut pretty tight on further immigration. I predict that “climate change” will lose its constituency; those lads have cried wolf too many times.

O Holy Night

 

Mariah Carey does the ultimate rendition of the ultimate carol.

Without Firing a Shot

 

Back at the close of the 19th century, Wilfred Laurier said “Canada is free, and freedom is its nationality.”

It follows that, if Canada loses its freedom, there is no more reason for Canada. 

This is perhaps the most compelling argument for Canada to join the US. It is clear that the Canadian Constitution has not protected our freedoms. Justin Trudeau’s government has been able to trample them, and nothing seemed to be there to stop him. It is exceptionally difficult to legally amend the Canadian Constitution; we are stuck with it. The simplest thing, then, might be to join the USA. Many Canadians now crave the protections the US Constitution seems able to protect.

Here is a simple non-violent way for Trump to annex Canada: offer any native-born Canadian citizens automatic citizenship on moving to the States, on the revocation of their Canadian citizenship. Many would take him up on the offer; especially the youngest, most ambitious, and most qualified. Canada would be left impoverished, and the US enriched. More so if he also applied the threatened 25% tariffs. The remnants would probably soon enough beg to be admitted.

The Magdeberg Christmas Market Attack

 

There is a perverse confusion among commentators about the motives of the serial killer who recently drove a car into the Magdeberg Christmas Market. Of course this was a Muslim terrorist attack, right?

But then int runs out that, although born in Saudi Arabia, he was a militant atheist, and anti-Islam.

So, confused, the piundits ask, what possible motive could he have? He must be lying. He must really be Muslim, and was deep under cover for these many years. Or he is Shia, and only anti-Sunni, not anti-Muslim. And so on. 

After all, why on earth would an atheist be anti-Christian?

Stop and think for a moment.

In the real world, an atheist is far more an enemy of Christianity than a Muslim fellow monotheist. Consider the treatment of Christians in North Korea, Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China. Compare the Christians living relatively peaceably in the Ottoman Empire and the Muslim Levant for millennia.

Modern jihadists are always at best lukewarm about Islam. Calling them “extremists” is an anti-religious alibi. They are westernized secular middle easterners suffering from culture shock. 

Tonight's the Night

 

The greatest of Christmas carols. A real test of a great voice.

A Canadian Advent Song

 

Gordon Lightfoot is a great lyricist.

The Two Kinds of People

 

There are, in this world, two kinds of people: those who accept the existence of God, and those who try to deny it. Never the twain shall meet; these are perfectly incompatible views, like humans and zombies. The instant you accept the existence of the absolute, it is necessarily of absolute importance. Those who do not see it are, at charitable best, insane. They are not in the conversation.

Deniers, similarly, cannot tolerate believers. Ultimately, the existence of God is certain and accessible to reason. To deny God is therefore to turn from God, to dodge the truth. 

People turn from God because they are conscious of doing wrong, or want to do wrong. They don’t want to accept the existence of divine justice. They want to get away with it; like Adam and Eve hiding in the bushes. Religion is a “religious dictatorship.” Anyone who asserts the existence of God, genuinely claims to believe it, is a threat to them, and must be shut down. Churches burned, Christmas markets attacked.

The most obvious tactic is to infiltrate any convenient religious body themselves, and seek to subvert it. This is the Pharisee gambit; they are common in every religion. I became all too familiar with them studying religion in grad school. Within the department, you gained approval by saying the most outrageously skeptical and irreligious thing.  The sincerely religious were mocked as ignorant.

I thank God I escaped that. But it was not easy. Most higher education is cult-like.

Advent Music from Jerusalem

 

Advent Music

 

Trump's Egomania Revealed

 

There is as lot of grumbling about Elon Musk being so active in the incoming Trump administration. The common sneer is that he must soon fall from grace, because “Trump doesn’t like being upstaged.” 

This is not really a new idea. I heard this comment before, when there was discussion of possible VP picks. 

Where is it coming from? Does anyone have any actual evidence of Trump turning on someone for upstaging him?

Maybe from Mike Pence being his original VP. Pence was always low key to a fault.

But the story I hear is that Pence was not Trump’s choice. He was forced on him by the party brass, who feared Trump’s flamboyance and wanted a steady hand and steadier image. Trump wanted Newt Gingrich—another firebrand.

The thesis remains unproven. Nobody has ever upstaged Trump. It is just a way to avoid giving Trump credit for his own great showmanship. He has never needed to suppress anyone else for being a better showman, so there is no way to know whether he would.

But look at his cabinet picks. They are what evidence we have. He has not selected faceless bureaucrats or shrinking violets or yes-men. Each choice is someone outspoken, charismatic, and with their own constituency. RFK Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, Pete Hegseth, Matt Gaetz, Tom Homan, Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy, Kristi Noem... They were the very ones you would pick if you were trying to find someone to upstage Trump.

Compare the cabinet of Justin Trudeau in Canada. None have established an independent constituency or identity with the public—unless by resigning. Those who already had a public profile, having served prior to Trudeau, Stephane Dion or Marc Garneau, were pushed out early. In the recent cabinet shuffle, with perhaps one third of his caucus in open revolt, Trudeau appointed David McGuinty and Nathaniel Erskine-Smith as new ministers. You would think at this point he was scraping the bottom of the barrel. Instead, he was finally forced at last to appoint members who, based on their skills, accomplishments, and constituencies, should have been in the cabinet all along. But they might have taken some of the spotlight from Trudeau.

As is usually the case, the common wisdom among the punditry is the opposite of the truth.

Downfall

 

Many commentators are asking how Trudeau and the PMO could have been so clueless as to think that Chrystia Freeland would cheerfully agree to reading a Fall financial statement she disagreed with, and then be replaced as finance minister the next day, for a position without portfolio. And being told this over a Zoom call! And without having any assurance from Mark Carney that he would take over!

The answer is narcissistic rage. 

Trudeau knew he was about to lose power. The polls show it, and now Trump was about to drop the hammer.

As M. Scott Peck pointed out, when a narcissist is challenged, and sees no exit, they lose touch with reality, become psychotic. Their world-view is in the first place based on a delusion, of their own superiority. Panicked, the imperative was to prove to himself that he still had power, by exercising it on someone else ruthlessly. He had to kick the dog, beat his child, see someone else entirely under his power suffer.

Freeland looked like a suitable scapegoat and victim, precisely because she had always been so loyal.  It would be most cruel, then, if he turned on her, and most hurtful.

Was it liable to blow up the government? Trudeau was not going to care. He knew he was going down anyway. His instinct was to do as much damage to others as possible as he went. Make it as spectacular as possible, to stay special. Best if he could destroy Freeland, destroy the Liberal Party, and leave Canada in the worst position to negotiate, on the way down. The narcissist, if he must lose, will do his best to take the world with him. It is the way a school shooter thinks.

What might Trudeau do next? I think it would be most characteristic for him not to prorogue parliament and step down, allowing the Liberals to choose a new leader. Rather, it would be to use the one power he has left: to go to the Governor-General and ask for dissolution and an election himself, or concur with Poilievre's call for a special sitting of Parliament. He's going down anyway. This is his chance to stick it to the Liberal Party, to those in the party who want him gone, and to the leadership hopefuls. It would also take revenge on Jagmeet Singh, who seems to be counting on the Liberals stalling by proroguing parliament to avoid a non-confidence vote until February, when Singh's pension kicks in.

Let's see.

Christmas is Coming

 

Advent Music

 

How Far We Have Come in our Treatment of the Indigenous Peoples

 

The traditional image of Tecumseh

One standard element of the wider myth of the North American Indian is the standard claim that, until recently, indigenous Canadians were despised and discriminated against. And they and their contribution was supposedly omitted from the history books.

As fate would have it, I inherited my grandmother’s high school history book, published by the Ontario Ministry of Education in 1914. Ontario High School History of Canada. Price 19 cents. So let’s have a look. Are the Indians left out? Are they treated with contempt as an inferior race?

The first chapter is about the land, the geography. But the second chapter is all about “The Aborigines.” Not “Indians”; “Aborigines.” “Indians,” it is explained, is a misnomer. Sounds pretty woke. 

They are described on introduction as “Men of good features and athletic build.” There is a detailed description of the various tribes or nations and where they lived at first contact. They are referred to a couple of times as “savages.” Our author does not hold the modern prejudice that all cultures must be considered equal on all points. But note, this is an issue of culture, not race. And he goes on to say that the Iroquois, however, “had done something … wonderful,” in forming the Iroquois Confederacy, “and had solved many of the most difficult questions of government.” “Each member of the tribe had great individual liberty.” “No state ever more fully realized Napoleon’s ideal of ‘a career open to talent.’” The author refers to their “political genius.”

That’s at worst, condemning the culture itself with loud praise. 

There may seem to be some criticism of their methods of war: “usually the only fate in store for the captive was torture and death.” But this is no more than a statement of historic fact, as recorded in all the contemporary accounts. And that sentence is immediately followed by this: “Yet, they did not disdain the arts of peace, and all the tribes had lifted themselves more or less above primitive barbarism.” 

Details are then given of Indian arts and culture. Things were done “with great skill”; “with real skill; “well-tilled fields.” The potlatch is praised as promoting hospitality. “To the Coast Indians the potlatch fulfilled the three objects performed for us by a dinner party, a general store, and a bank.”

To sum up, “Freedom marked the life of the Indian from his earliest days…. Nothing was done under compulsion.”

When it comes to Indian spirituality, there is some clear criticism. “His love of inflicting torture was only one sign that his nature was really nervous and hysterical. This we see clearly in his religion.” “Hysterical,” however, to this author, means it involved a lot of dancing and making noise. Presumably he would have the same problem with a Methodist tent meeting or Pentecostal service. This smacks of the Anglican unease with “religious enthusiasm.” A prejudice, perhaps, but not a racial one. 

Of the Inuit, treated separately, our author opines that under the influence of the Moravian missionaries, “They cast their cruelty and love of war aside, and became the peaceful race we know today.”

The story of the indigenous people is then woven through the following two chapters, on the European discovers and the early years of New France: the war between the French/Huron/Algonquin alliance and the Iroquois is described. 

Chapter Five is again wholly about the Indians, “Missionaries and Indians.” The aim of the missionaries, it is explained, “was to establish a native Christianity. They learned the language of their flocks, and made little or no attempt to teach them French. …In order to preserve their flocks from the many vices of European culture,  “They wished to keep their Indian charges in absolute seclusion from all white influence save their own.” So much for the modern claim that the intent was to impose European culture and assimilate the Indians. But this is the historical reality, borne out by the extensive Jesuit Relations.

In subsequent chapters, Iroquois are featured in the “Half Century of Conflict” between England and France. “Renewed Iroquois Attacks” on New France; “The Massacre of Lachine”; “The Three War Parties.” 

A chapter or two later, we read of “Pontiac’s War,” which was “a struggle against the white invader.” No guilt is attributed to the Indians for the uprising.

A chapter on the War of 1812 tells of Tecumseh, “a brave and chivalrous warrior and a far-seeing statesman.” The Indian role in that war and in its significant battles is covered.

The tale of the Red River Rebellion and North West Rebellion are told in terms sympathetic to Riel and the “half-breed” rebels. It was all down to insensitivity and blunders by the federal government. “It would have been better to give them want they wanted than to drive them into rebellion. Others of their requests, such as those for schools and hospitals, were still more reasonable.”

In sum, while a few of the terms used would, for arbitrary reasons, be considered politi9cally incorrect in acurrent text, the indigenous people are fully reported on and treated sympathetically.  When they clash with Europeans, the story is generally told from the indigenous point of view.

Canadians, and Americans, have always loved Indians, and have always been inclined to give them special treatment.

Giving to the Poor

 

I keep seeing stupid posts saying things like this: “Elon Musk is worth $442 billion. Such greed! There are only 8 billion people on Earth. If he handed all that money out, everyone on Earth would be a billionaire. No one man should have so much.”

Seriously. I see and hear this repeatedly.

Do the math: 442 divided by eight: Elon Musk could give each of us 55 dollars and 25 cents.

Musk would then have nothing, and nobody else would really be any richer.

A similar comment: “How can Musk complain about homelessness being due to addiction and mental illness? Why doesn’t he give some of his money to the poor and actually do something about it?”

This assumes that homelessness is caused by poverty; that you can fix poverty by giving poor people money; and that Musk is doing nothing useful with his money.

In principle, nobody should hoard possessions. See the parable of Dives and Lazarus. Luke 16: 19-31. If you have two coats, and you see someone else freezing, you owe him one of them. 

However, someone who is rich is not necessarily hoarding. Not all gains are ill-gotten. Musk or another wealthy man may be living modestly, but using his money as a tool to improve the world. Entrepreneurs commonly are. Musk clearly is. Give away all his money, and we get none of the innovations he is responsible for, which cumulatively improve everyone’s lives far more than a one-time payment of $55.

And if we do have more than we need, we must target our charity so that it actually does help others, rather than just using it to salve our conscience, or make us feel superior. We need to do what is best for them, not what is easiest for us. 

Homelessness is not caused by poverty. 

I volunteer at Romero House, giving meals to the poor. Some of the people who volunteer there have been on the streets themselves. They never got off the streets because someone gave them money. It is always because they found religion. Ask AA about that. Ask the Salvation Army.

One guy gave me some interesting information. Back in those days, he would beg on the streetcorner uptown. He claimed he cleared thousands in a week just doing this. The problem was, in the afternoon, he spent it all on drugs or alcohol.

So it does no good to simply give a truly destitute person money. It probably does them harm. 

The local own council sought last year to end homelessness by setting up a village of containers converted into mini homes, in a downtown parking lot where the homeless already gathered.

Yesterday, I saw the containers have all been shut down and moved into a pile. At the onset of another winter. Clearly the experiment did not work. 

The problem is meaninglessness. These people are in real need; they are dying by the day. But we have to give them meaning and hope, not money for another fix. Or, worse, a free fix. 

We need to get out and talk to them, about Jesus, the Gospel, God. As the religious charities are or ought to be doing. If you want to help, volunteer with them.

In the Bleak Midwinter

 

Advent music. 

Lyrics are a poem by Christian Rossetti. Music is by Gustav Holst. I find it intensely beauiful.

Although I'd tweak the lyrics if I could:

In the bleak mid-winter
  Frosty wind made moan
Earth stood hard as iron,
  Water like a stone;
Snow had fallen, snow on snow,
  Snow on snow on snow,
In the bleak mid-winter
  Many years ago.

On Being Born Again

 

"Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"

Friend Xerxes, in his latest column, scorns an evangelical pastor for asking him if he has given his life to Jesus.

“Many times,” Xerxes answered.

“Once is enough,” the evangelist replied.

Xerxes holds that truth dawns only slowly, over one’s lifetime. In the real world, it does not happen all at once.

But I have to agree with the evangelical pastor. Once is enough to give your life to Jesus, assuming you do not take it back; and we should expect conversion to come suddenly. This is how the Bible describes it.

See Saul on the road to Damascus. Deus ex machina.

But see also the calling of the apostles. “So they pulled their boats up on shore, left everything and followed him." James and John even abandon their father Zebedee in the boat, no doubt wondering what just happened. 

Compare the experience of Saint Augustine:

“I quickly returned to the bench…snatched up the apostle’s book…and in silence read the paragraph on which my eyes fell: ‘Not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying, but put on the Lord Jesus Christ and make no provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof’ (Romans 13:13)…. I wanted to read no further, nor did I need to. For instantly, as the sentence ended, there was infused in my heart something light the light of full certainty and all the gloom of doubt vanished away.” Augustine, Confessions 8

And Jesus says this is the way it is supposed to happen, refusing to let a prospective disciple wait even until his recently dead father is in the ground.  “Let the dead bury their own dead.” 

In an instant, everything changes.

Ask the Buddha suddenly enlightened under the Bodhi tree. Ask Moses encountering the burning bush.

I can’t really account for Xerxes’s experience being different. Of course over time one can grow in the faith, but the initial experience really is, as the Bible says, like being born again. I say that as a Catholic, not an evangelical Protestant. This is why in the Catholic Church we have the sacrament of Confirmation, a second baptism.

I suspect anyone who has not experienced this sudden wrench in perspective, like jumping off a cliff into the arms of angels, has not really given their life to Jesus in the first place.

Advent Music

 

Canadian Advent.

What if Joni is singing about her relationship with God?

Canadian Government in Chaos

Things in Ottawa are happening too quickly for commentary. The Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, Freeland, resigned two hours before she was to present the fall budget statement in the Commons, openly criticizing the PM for the policy she was about to announce.

The automatic next in line as finance minister, Champagne, immediately refused the position and refused to read the financial statement. 

PM Trudeau is apparently not available.

I don't know yet who actually presented the budget statement. 

Also this morning, the Housing minister resigned.

The Minister of Transport and Head of the Treasury Board, Anand, was cornered in the hall, and was clearly emotional. She was blindsided by Freeland’s resignation. She refused comment, saying she needed to compose her thoughts.

Situation changing hourly. Whatever happens next, this one will be in the history books.

This all seems to have been triggered by Trump’s tariff threat. Freedland refers to it in her resignation letter.

I think Trump knew what he was doing. Amid such chaos, it will be difficult for the NDP to vote confidence in the government yet again.

The Three Temptations of the Christ

 

I ponder whether Jordan Peterson is doing any good with his seminars on the Bible. I do not find him a clear thinker. An excerpt I happened to catch online recently seemed to me pretty weak. A view of faith and the tradition from the outside, and uncomprehending.

That may be the point. That may be what is needed for the greater public: an everyman to represent the audience, poking and prodding at this odd book and raising questions. What the heck is this all about? It may be a gateway for some.

Or it may be disastrous: an attempt to fit the Bible within Peterson’s false world view of clinical psychology.

The excerpt I heard was on the three temptations of Jesus in the desert, described to us by Matthew and Luke.

What struck me foremost was the Peterson panel’s need to discount the Devil’s clear statement in the gospels: “To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will.” The panel’s reaction sounded to me like denial. They refused to acknowledge that Satan is in charge of this world. They did not like to hear that. Peterson absurdly claimed that Satan was really offering Jesus rulership in Hell, even though the text says plainly “the kingdoms of this world.” Rulership is good, to Peterson, so long as you don’t accept Satan first. Hierarchy. Lobsters. Order. 

From this we see that Peterson himself craves power.

Which is probably why most people go into psychology. It is a perfect profession for bullies.

The panel was also puzzled that Jesus didn’t turn the rocks into bread. Why not? After all, bread is good, right? 

They didn’t seem to grasp the significance of a fast, and of honouring the commitment to fast. I think their confusion was why anyone would ever fast in the first place.

For the record, the proper understanding of the three temptations is simple, if you are familiar with Christian ethics. They are the three temptations we all face: the world, the flesh, and the devil.

 In offering the rulership of all the kingdoms of the world, “their authority and their glory,” Satan was offering the world.

In tempting Jesus to turn stones into bread and break his fast, Satan was offering physical pleasures: the flesh. We always think of sex here, no doubt, but food is also a pleasure of the flesh.

In tempting Jesus to throw himself down from the pinnacle of the temple and have angels rescue him, Satan was offering “the Devil.” The Devil is Lucifer; the essence of Lucifer is pride, self-will. To declare yourself God.

Throwing himself from the top of the temple and having angels catch him would after all, be the ultimate publicity stunt, issuing orders to God and showing God obeys him. “Putting God to the test.” Putting himself above God.

A more contemporary and secular description of the three temptations would be money, power, and fame. Money = the flesh; power = the world; fame = the Devil. They are about the same thing, the same temptations. They are the things that pull us off the rails. Are we missing any?

Now about the claim that the Devil is in control of the kingdoms of this world, and gets to choose their rulers: Those who become rulers are almost necessarily those who lust for power. Set up any system you like for choosing rulers, and this almost must remain true. It follows that the Devil is the ruler of this world: the temptation of power over others, which is always Satanic. 

This is no doubt why the emperor Constantine refused baptism until his deathbed. He understood that rulership was incompatible with true Christian virtue. It should be no surprise, if we continually find that our rulers and prominent politicians behave badly in their private lives. Good Christians are highly unlikely to find themselves in such positions.

The one possible partial exception is monarchies. Monarchies in effect select the ruler randomly, not because they want to rule. So monarchs may not be particularly power hungry.  This is why monarchies are a more benevolent form of government than dictatorships, even if the powers exercised are the same. But even within effective monarchies there are usually palace intrigues, power struggles, and needs to be ruthless to remain in power. Pity Lady Jane Grey.

A word as well on fasting, so incomprehensible to the psychological mindset. Fasting is of value in itself because, contrary to Freud, animal urges are not here to be satisfied; they are here to be disciplined. We are not animals. Otherwise there is no point to our existence. Man shall not live by bread alone, but by following the commandments of God. 

Psychology is so far from religion that I doubt the two can be reconciled. Making Jordan Peterson a false prophet.

About Those UAPs/UFOs over New Jersey

 

I think I know what’s going on with ll the drones being spotted over New Jersey.

The clue is that they are over New Jersey. Why New Jersey?

I say this is a promotion stunt for a new movie (or possibly a series) based on HG Wells’s War of the Worlds.

In Orson Welles’s famous radio adaptation in 1938, the aliens landed in Grovers Mill, New Jersey.

That play was done as a mock series of news reports. It was so realistic many thought Martians were really landing.

So a fleet of mysterious drones might recreate the moment and stimulate the sme level of interest again.

It is a good time to do a remake, too. The last was in 2005; twenty years ago. But between then and now, we have had the Covid pandemic, making the ultimate defeat of the aliens by a terrestrial virus topical. And there are current anxieties over the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the war in Gaza, the same sort of tensions that helped the 1938 broadcast go viral.

This makes more sense to me that it being UFOs/UAP of the usual sort. These drones do not look like the usual UFOs, and do not seem to have the same ability to defy the laws of physics. If it were a government operation, why would they do it over a highly populated area like New Jersey, with flashing lights? Hardly the way to ensure secrecy; this looks more as though designed to ensure publicity. Iran or China? Same objection. What would they have accomplished? Revealing a new capability so the US can figure out how to defend against it?

I say it is a Hollywood stunt. I expect the government is in on it. This is why they can say there is no security threat or threat to the population, while also saying they don’t know where the drones are coming from.

Remember the Good Old Days?

 

Does anyone remember when pedophilia was supposed to be a crisis only among the Catholic clergy? Any priest was suspect, and the church itself was blamed and fined crippling amounts. All paid ultimately by innocent parishioners. Many churches had to be shut down and sold off. Not to mention church-run orphanages and residential schools.

It was always obvious that this was scapegoating. Nobody was looking for pedophilia anywhere else.

We now know it was also projection. We find increasingly that pedophilia is common in the public schools, in sports teams, in clubs, in Hollywood. We learn that huge numbers of children go missing every year. That there are vast pedophile rings involving the rich and famous. That child sex trafficking is a big business.

And now that it cannot be blamed on the Catholic Church, the chattering classes seem unready to condemn it. Instead, films about the problem are suppressed; client lists are suppressed; child grooming is fairly openly promoted with pornographic books in school libraries and drag queen story hours. And those who object are condemned as bigots.

Does nobody see what is going on here?

The Catholic Church was and is targeted because it is a voice for protecting the children: from abortion, from immorality, from neglect, from abuse, from exploitation. 

Rules and morals protect the weak and vulnerable. The strong and malicious are always against them.

How Canada Falls

 

I think Trump is serious about annexing Canada. He’s been harping at it, recently referring to Trudeau as “governor of the great state of Canada.” 

Trump is moving the Overton window, He’s forcing the discussion. He’s done this before. Eventually, it becomes the standard wisdom. Remember when building the border wall was a crazy idea? And it was racist to object to illegals? 

The annexation makes every kind of sense from the American perspective. It is ultimately the only way to secure the northern border. 

Trudeau, predictably, is reacting in the worst way possible, from Canada’s point of view. He always wants a fight; this is how he reacts when challenged. And he does not care what damage he does to Canada; as noted in a recent column, as a narcissist, he probably wants to burn the place down because it is no longer inclined to vote for him.  

Trudeau is idiotically threatening to raise tariffs on American products coming into Canada as retaliation; rather than trying to reach accommodation.

In any trade war, Canada is bound to lose. Canada’s economy depends far more on trade with the US than the American economy depends on trade with Canada. The trade war will probably crash the Canadian economy, and soon have Canadians begging to join the US.

As it stands, an online poll has Canadians evenly split on whether they’d rather stay independent or join the US.

Trudeau’s intransigence may be part of Trump’s calculations. He might have expected this reaction. As a skilled negotiator, he probably studies his opponents’ weaknesses. He seems to be deliberately provoking Trudeau to do something stupid. 

I can see it happening. This or that individual province votes to join the US. The US then piles forces in, forestalling any action by the federal government. If any province but Nova Scotia, PEI, BC  or Newfoundland make this move, they cut Canada in half, making it unviable. 

I’d put my money on Alberta going first.

Poilievre might yet right the ship; but I think it is going to happen. 

There Is a War

 

A Jehovah’s Witness recently justified their non-observance of Christmas to me by quoting 2 Corinthians 6:

“14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15 What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? …

17 Therefore, “Come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.”

This only works as a reason to shun Christmas if you think Christians are unbelievers. And then you contradict St. Paul in this passage, for he cites Christ as the object of belief. 

But this advice to stay clear of unbelievers is standard for monotheists in general. It should not be ignored.

The same advice is in the Talmud: "Separate yourself from the nations, and do not eat with them." Jubilees 22: 16.

The Quran is more violent: “Kill them [the unbelievers, kafirs] wherever you come upon them and drive them out of the places from which they have driven you out. For persecution is far worse than killing.” Surah Al-Baqarah 191.

Even John Locke and the philosophers of liberal democracy say so: religious liberty is a necessary human right, freedom of conscience, but atheism is not to be tolerated in a liberal democracy.

This is vital advice. We cannot ignore or reject it; it comes with the warrant of God himself. Believers cannot mix with those who do not believe in God. One or the other will be persecuted. Belief and unbelief are fire and water.

This is indeed historically shown to be true. The pagan Roman empire could get along with the worshippers of any given pagan/polytheistic deity. But they could not tolerate the Jews, and levelled Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple. And they persecuted the early Christians. So did the polytheistic Babylonians before them—then the Jews were allowed to return to their lands by Cyrus, the Zoroastrian, a fellow monotheist. 

Other historical examples could be multiplied almost indefinitely. 

But why are the two positions incompatible? Why can’t we all just get along?

Belief in God means belief in the absolute. God is the absolute, by definition. God is the good, the real, and the beautiful. Rejecting God is relativism. Relativism cannot permit the existence of the absolute, and therefore cannot accept absolutism as tolerable. And absolutism must view some things as positively wrong; therefore it cannot accept relativism. 

Locke’s objection is that an unbeliever cannot feel himself bound by an oath. Not recognizing the authority of God implies not recognizing the demands of morality, or truth, or beauty. Relativism cannot accept that there is such a thing as reality, or truth. 

Similarly, it cannot accept that anything is either good or bad. So a relativist will not accept the demands of morality.

That is usually why people become relativists: to escape their conscience. The existence of God is accessible to human reason. It has been proven by the philosophers a dozen or more ways. Given that this is so, anyone rejects God ultimately because they reject the authority of God, reject being subject to Him, or to anyone but themselves. 

“Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav’n.” – Milton, Stan’s speech, Paradise Lost.

Accordingly, as Locke argued, one cannot trust an unbeliever. 

Now let’s get to the third great transcendental. Rejecting God means rejecting reality, for God is the ultimate real. It means rejecting good and evil, rejecting morality. It also means rejecting the concept of beauty. As, for fear of their conscience, unbelievers will shun any hint of the absolute, they will actually shun beauty.

This illuminates Jesus’s repeated test of the false prophet: “By their fruits you shall know them.” 

A relativistic age like our own will lose its capacity to produce beauty in the arts. Artists who are unbelievers will not produce anything of value.

But here’s the bigger, more ominous problem: we are now living cheek by jowl, throughout the West, with a large mass of genuine unbelievers, kafirs. This is unsustainable, and must lead to trench warfare, figuratively or even literally. There is a reason why we all it a "culture war."

We are seeing the battle lines draw up more clearly all the time: the religious cluster around Trump in the US, Catholics like RFK or JD Vance, evangelicals like Huckabee or Cruz, Hindus like Ramaswamy or Gabbard, orthodox Jews like Ben Shapiro; while the Liberal Party in Canada bans from their ranks anyone who opposes abortion.

And one side or he other must triumph. They cannot just coexist.

How Trudeau Will Kill Canada

 

Jordan Peterson points out that Justin Trudeau is a narcissist. This is dangerous, because he is about to lose power. What does a narcissist do if he is rejected? Narcissistic rage. He will try to destroy those who have rejected him. This is the impulse that gives us mass shooters. Trudeau has no love for Canada. On leaving office, he is likely to do whatever is in his power to destroy Canada, for letting him down.

We saw Hitler do this, ordering the destruction of German infrastructure in his final days, rather than letting it fall to the Allies. Orders fortunately countermanded by Speer.

Biden is also an extreme narcissist. This is why he sabotaged Kamala Harris’s campaign in subtle ways; why he sabotaged the Democratic Party by pardoning his son. They let him down. Now he is releasing long-range missiles to Ukraine. We must fear what else he might be up to; especially since he has the nuclear codes. But the US president is fortunately relatively restrained in what he can do unilaterally. 

Trudeau, as Canadian Prime Minister, unfortunately, has more unilateral power and fewer constraints. The Liberal Party’s rules prevent MPs from rising against him. He can do more damage than Biden can. He has already pushed through some outrageous legislation. We must fear what he may do in the almost one year he has left, if he grasps that he is inevitably going to lose the net election.

Investment in Canada has been in decline ever since he took power in 2015.The Canadian economy does not look that bad yet, but I suspect that it has been running on prior reputation and fumes. That can go on for a while, and then there is a general collapse. We already have a homelessness crisis, a medical crisis, a drug crisis, and a cost of living crisis. And a foreign affairs crisis, Trudeau having alienated many trading partners. Even without Trump’s 25% tariffs, things could get worse quickly. I now think Trump genuinely intends to impose the tariffs. And Trudeau may be doing his best to speed the general collapse. He wants it. Canada has failed him.

Jordan Peterson fears that by the time Poilievre gets into power next October or before, the damage may be too great to repair. He will just be left holding the bag. 

We may be begging the US to come in and take over.

Something similar happened to Scotland in 1707: economic hardship and poor management obliged them to unite with England, in return for debt relief. Similar financial problems convinced Newfoundland to join Canada in 1947. 

Why would the US want us?

Canada’s natural resources, including important strategic materials, make it a good investment.

But more critically, in this age of easy transportation and mass migration, the world’s longest undefended border has become untenable. It is possible to build a wall across the US-Mexico border. The Canada-US border is too long for that, and needs to remain porous to sustain the current volume of trade. 

The only solution to that problem is to ensure that Canadian and US immigration and border policy is the same: undesirables must be stopped on entry to Canada, as they cannot be stopped at the US border.

This means the US border must encompass Canada. 

Trump may have seen this, and the 25% tariff may be intended to force the issue.

Let’s just hope it happens without too much suffering, dislocation, or blood.

A Traditional Family Christmas

 

Anti-Israel protesters disrupting Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade, NYC.

Last night I attended our city’s ceremonial lighting of the municipal Christmas tree in front of City Hall. The mayor and councilors were there; the local MPP; Santa Claus, and a dancing angel. A big event, well attended, with other ancillary events going on all over town. Free Christmas films in the restored theatre. Marshmallows over campfires in the park. Strolling carollers. Dancers in the malls. An organ recital at the Anglican church. It should have been a magical evening for families.

But it was marred from the start by perhaps a half-dozen protesters who parked in front of the unlit Christmas tree, waving Palestinian, Syrian, and Lebanese flags, playing loud music with a political message from some boombox, as if to drown out those on the dais, and shouting through a loudspeaker such slogans as “Happy f***ing birthday, Jesus!” and “Jesus was born in Palestine.”

After a while they disappeared. I hope it was because the police threatened arrest.

Such demonstrations and, worse, riots in places like Montreal, are a major reason why popular sentiment is turning so quickly against mass immigration. October 6, last year, was a turning point. 

Day after day, the pro-Palestinian protesters are doing their best to show that multiculturalism does not work. 

Now even Justin Trudeau and Kier Starmer are promising to reduce immigration and deport illegals.

The silent majority only wants to live their lives in peace and quiet. 

Grifters can play on this. They raise a fuss, and the majority will give them whatever they demand, to keep the peace.

But this is danegeld. The troublemakers get louder and louder, seeing that it pays well, until at last the majority wakes up to the realization that the only way to keep the peace is to get rid of the troublemakers. 

The grifters will always make this mistake. 

We seem to be at that point. 

I am tempted to say that Muslim immigrants from the Levant specifically are the problem. I thought at the time it was madness to allow a mass immigration of Syrians fleeing the Syrian civil war. The problem was, by letting in both sides, we were importing the war itself. It was as if, in response to persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany, we opened our borders to all German immigration, not just Jews.

But it is not just the Muslims who have gone too far. It is also the transgender lobby with their demands to take our children. It is the indigenous lobby with their church burnings and false claims of mass graves. The great awakening is surely waking up to them as well.

It may not get too bloody; it may not be as bad as WWII.

A similar parallel is Quebec, with its mounting demands and threats throughout the second half of the twentieth century. All it took then was Stephane Dion laying down the law in a closely reasoned public letter. 

Let’s hope.

Bubble Life

 

I attended a coffee and conversation recently in which one participant bravely brought up his political doubts, in an oblique way.

“Whatever you think about Trump, didn’t the media let us down? Didn’t they tell us Trump couldn’t win? Didn’t they tell us nobody would vote for Trump? Seventy-five million people did. How is this possible? They’re not giving us the whole story.”

Cognitive dissonance. Other participants first responded by suggesting other news sources he might prefer-- all either “mainstream” or explicitly on the left. No right-wing sources like Daily Wire or Instapundit or even X. Of course they would not mention X except to condemn it; but BlueSky was recommended.

A non sequitur, of course. All were media that said Trump was evil and Harris would win. Still within the bubble.

The disconnect being too obvious, one participant at last piped up:  IQ has been dropping in the US for a couple of generations.

Mutters of agreement. This seemed to satisfy everyone, and ended the conversation. They moved on to another topic.

Of course this explanation was nonsensical. There is no reason to suppose that people with a low IQ will automatically vote en masse for an obviously bad candidate. At most, you would expect their votes to be a bit more random.

I appreciated the bravery of the man who raised the question, if timidly. He was braver than I. I kept my peace. It was not worth it to speak up. I suspect there were others in the meeting who also did not believe Trump was an obviously better choice than Harris. But who wants to be first to say so? We have all learned that it does not pay to disagree with a leftist. They will become hysterical. 

This is what it looks and feels like when people are delusional. 

I think wokism and wokery will now collapse quickly. The bubble has begun to pop. It has popped, and many are wandering around, confused.

More Reasons for Canadian Independence

 

In my quest for one good reason why Canada should be independent of the US, I have watched a video from True North.

Here are their arguments, as I noted them:

1. Canadians are more polite

Canadians have a reputation for being more polite; so do US Southerners. “Southern gentility.” Would anyone consider this a reason for the US South to be independent?

2. Canadians welcome immigrants.

Obviously, the US too welcomes immigrants. It is the original immigrant society. As we have that in common, it is an argument for union, not separation. 

3. America expects their immigrants to assimilate.

The old saw was that Canada was a “mosaic,” while the US was a “melting pot.” Canada has now enshrined “multiculturalism” in our constitution, while US money carries the motto “E Pluribus Unum.” A sad attempt to make Canada different from the US somehow. A distinction; but it is still an argument for union. Multiculturalism, as anyone could have predicted, is proving a disaster wherever it is tried. Witness the riots in Europe. The fact that it is embedded in the Canadian constitution, is a compelling argument for abolishing Canada and assimilation to the US. It may be the only way to get rid of the policy.

4. America has stronger protections for rights and freedoms. E.g., Canadians are squeamish about a right to bear arms.

One might also cite the stronger commitment to freedom of speech, versus Canada’s “hate speech” laws. Again, while this is a distinction, it is a compelling argument for union. It gives us more rights.

5. Commitment to the crown

This is the reason Canada exists. But how important is it? How much is it worth sacrificing for? The crown’s role, afer all, is only symbolic.

6. There is more decentralization of power in Canada

This is a bit of a historical accident. On paper, US states have more power than Canadian provinces. Canadian decentralization has developed de facto from the need to appease Quebec.

That need would continue were Quebec part of the larger union. Accordingly, assimilating Quebec should decrease centralization throughout North America, given that the US Constitution allows for more decentralization than the Canadian one.

This makes union more desirable: decentralization is a trend already in the US.

7. America is an escape route for oppressed Canadians, so long as it is independent.

This argument works the opposite way too: Canada is an escape route for oppressed Americans, as in the days of the Underground Railroad, or the Vietnam draft.

This seems to me the best argument for an independent Canada. 

Yet the escape route is more open and accessible, if less complete, if we have the right to live and work on either side of the border. With fifty states, or fifty-five, instead of ten provinces, we have more options. If we need to flee some federal policy—there is still the UK, Australia, New Zealand, the Bahamas, Thailand, and so forth. It seems less necessary than it once was for the complete escape to be within a day’s drive.

So I have yet so see a strong argument for Canada to remain independence. It seems no more than a sentimental attachment.

Unburdened by What Has Been?

 

Discussion of the US annexing Canada is spreading, in the media and on X. 

I watch carefully the Canadian responses. What arguments does anyone have? Why is Canada independent?

The one argument I see is “we have universal health care.”

Not a good argument. In theory, if it so chose, Canada could still offer and provide universal health care for its residents as a US State.

Most often, no argument is given. Just an expletive, usually one beginning with F and ending with off.

This proves those who react this way have no argument.

As a businessman and entrepreneur, Trump has the skill of seeing a business opportunity. He sees when money has been left on the table. 

Canada was left on the table by the Statute of Westminster, and then progressively by the dropping of preferential tariffs when the UK entered the EU, the patriation of the Canadian constitution, and the influx of new immigrants. Its reason to exist was its British ties. They are gone. Britain walked away.

I think Canadians have felt this in their hearts for some time. Hence the frequent lament about an absence of Canadian identity. Justin Trudeau himself has said Canada has no identity, no reason to exist, no "mainstream." Hence the Canadian desire to join any international association going. Hence it's idolization of anything coming from abroad, its "multiculturalism."

Perhaps it would be a mercy.

I Think He's Serious

 

Someone leaked Trump's comment at his recent meeting with Trudeau, suggesting Canada become the 51st state. 

Why was this in particular leaked, and nothing else from the meeting?

Actually looks like a trial balloon.

Trump has since posted this on X:

Yeah, could be a troll. 

Bet it isn't. He's certainly forced the idea into the public discourse. Trump knows how to move the Overton window. Remember when building a border wall was a crazy idea?

Was Manifest Destiny Really Such a Bad Idea?

Report has leaked that, at their recent meeting in Mar-a-Lago, Justin Trudeau argued that Trump must not impose his proposed 25% tariff on Canada, “because it would wreck Canada’s economy.” To which Trump reputedly responded, “if the Canadian economy can’t survive without ripping the US off for $100 million a year (or whatever the figure was), maybe you should just become the 51st state. You could be governor. 

And everyone is taking this as a joke.

Is it?

And is it a bad idea?

Let’s consider it from Trump’s point of view. People, including me. have been assuming that his threat of 25% tariffs was just a gambit to open negotiations. But Trump has also said he wanted to finance the government with tariffs rather than income taxes. So the high tariffs fit in with his plan. Why would he sacrifice it for Canada’s sake? America first!

Trump is also concerned with legacy. He has already floated the idea of buying Greenland. High tariffs could indeed force Canada to plead for union. Trump would have more than doubled the land mass of the US, outdoing Thomas Jefferson’s Louisiana purchase, and surely earning him a place on Mount Rushmore.

(Much easier to do, by the way, with modern AI and 3-D modelling. They are already being used to carve stone decorations for building exteriors. Not the major undertaking it was for the president already there.)

Annexing Canada makes huge sense for America’s national security. It secures vast strategic resources and control of the Arctic, more urgent with global warming. Canada is incapable of securing the Arctic for itself. By joining forces, on the other hand, America becomes stronger and better able to defend our joint interests.

Canada has, after all, been a useless military ally in recent years, underspending on its defense and relying on the US taxpayer to defend it. Why should the US put up with this?

The argument against annexation is that Canada is politically more left-leaning than the US; so giving 40 million Canadians the franchise would be bad for Trump’s Republican Party. But this might not deter Trump personally, since he is not running again. Moreover, Trump has shown an ability to alter the electoral map, and appeal to new coalitions of voters. He has won over most of the working class; of the rust belt; he has drawn Hispanics--all formerly considered bedrock leftist constituencies. He seems to me to already be in progress of winning over Canadians. “Maple MAGA” is becoming a thing. Why not? The Republican party is being remade in Trump’s image. Trump’s agenda has really never been either clearly traditionally left or right.

One might worry that there would be much unrest among the local population if the Americans took over. It would have to be voluntary. But the tariffs could do a lot to convince Canucks of the need.

Why, given all this, would Trump back down on his tariffs? As a personal favour to Justin Trudeau?

Where's that laughing emoticon when I need it?

Now let’s look at it from the point of view of Canadians. Why not? What is the argument for Canada remaining independent? After all, the two countries share the same language (but for Quebec), the same culture, the same geography, the same history. Nova Scotians have at least as much in common with the people of Maine as they do with those of Quebec; or as Maine does with Louisiana. It has often been observed that British Columbians have more in common with, and more common interests with, the people of Washington or Alaska than with Newfoundlanders. Anywhere else on the globe we would probably be one country. 

The sole reason Canada became independent was loyalty to the British crown and the British connection. The British connection evaporated for all practical purposes in 1932 or so. Since then, there is only the sentimental attachment to the Royal Family. 

How much is that worth?

Canadians, if they joined the US, would not lose self-government. That is the beauty of the federal system. Canadians can continue to tend to their own Canadian affairs within the wider union. Rather, joining the US gives greater assurance of self-government. As we have seen recently, Canadian governments can go rogue and trample human rights. The Americans have a longer and culturally stronger tradition of democracy; with union, in such cases, the feds could step in. Just as Eisenhower sent in the national guard to desegregate Arkansas back in the day. Moreover, with greater ease of movement, Canadians could more easily escape a repressive local or regional government. One could always easily move to Florida, say, or some other given state whose policies suit you better. You can do this now to a more limited extent within Canada, but the choices are far fewer. Historically, Americans have always found it easier to move about than Canadians have.

Joining the US gives a greater measure of self-government in another sense too. It is a reality that who is in power in the US, and what policies they pursue, matters vitally to Canadians; arguably more than their own government. This is true for the entire Western world, but to Canada more than anyone. Nevertheless, as things stand, Canadians have no vote on who is in power in Washington, or what policies they pursue. We would surely be better off with representation.

And what are we paying for independence? Canadians have almost always made less than Americans on average, and everything costs more. Opportunities are much fewer for those hoping to rise to the top of their profession or business, without full access to the vastly larger US consumer and job market. We are paying a huge premium merely for a sentimental attachment to the British monarchy.

And if Trump imposes a 25% tariff across the board, that premium becomes dramatically greater. We already seem skidding into Third World status under current government policies; this would cast the die.

Let's see: Canadians, how about better pay, more opportunities, lower taxes, cheaper food and housing, and easy escapes from winters in Florida?

Canada is surely too large to be admitted as one state. Granted, the population is about the same as California, the biggest current state. But with its land area, Canada could soon have a much larger population. Besides, you really must recognize the distinctiveness of Quebec.

Ten states might be too generous. Five makes the most sense: BC, the Prairies, Ontario, Quebec, and the Atlantic Provinces.

The assimilation of Canada might start a trend: for many of the same arguments apply for the rest of the English-speaking world. Once, it might have made sense to have separate governments, because of distances and poor communications. Today, everyone in Australia knows everything that is going on in Canada, instantly, and everyone in the US knows and cares about everything that is going on in Britain. Separation is increasingly artificial and undesirable.