Advent Music

 

Healthy Religion

 

psychiatric restraints

A friend recently expressed his support for “healthy religion.”

This seems to me a backhanded criticism of religion, damning with faint praise. The implication is that religion is often unhealthy.

Pharisaism, I would agree, is unhealthy. But that is not religion, is it? It is feigning religion--by definition.

I Grokked the term “healthy religion,” and find it is a concept in psychology:

“Key Differences Between Healthy and Unhealthy Religion

The distinction between healthy and unhealthy religion often boils down to how faith impacts individual well-being, relationships, critical thinking, and society. Psychological research and expert analyses (e.g., from psychologists like Kenneth Pargament and studies in journals like Psychology of Religion and Spirituality) define healthy religion as one that promotes positive mental health outcomes—such as reduced anxiety, greater life satisfaction, empathy, and personal growth—while being flexible and intrinsically motivated. In contrast, unhealthy religion (sometimes called toxic, fundamentalist, or cult-like) leads to negative outcomes like fear, isolation, intolerance, and psychological harm through rigidity, control, and coercion.”

So the concept of “healthy religion” is a psychological one. It is judging religion from the viewpoint of psychology. In other words, it assumes modern psychology is the standard by which religion is to be judged.

That is backwards. Religion deals with absolute truth and absolute value: “worth-ship.” Accordingly, religion is the standard by which psychology must be judged, not vice versa. You have to determine what you want to do before you decide what tool will do it.

I agree that religion promotes positive mental health outcomes, reduced anxiety, greater life satisfaction, empathy, and personal growth. I think this is true of all religion, at some level. But that is not the purpose of religion. You do not worship God for your health.

Are there indeed forms of religion that produce fear, isolation, intolerance, rigidity, control, and coercion? I do not think so. Religion is perhaps unique among human concerns in that it does not and cannot control or coerce: one’s religion is always voluntary. One can always walk away. One can be forced by a government or one’s family to pretend to belong to a given religion; but not to actually believe it. And such coercion is from the government or the family, not the religion. 

This is not true, for example, of psychology, which can at times be coercive: involuntary confinement, electroshock therapy, lobotomy, shackles, straightjackets, and so forth.

Does religion produce intolerance? Belonging to a religion can cause one to be intolerant of people not members of that religion; but this is true of all groups. To form an in-group of any kind is automatically to form an “out-group.” And surely one does not want to discourage all community on these grounds. Conversely, it is from religion that we get the concept of human equality and human rights—that all men are brothers and you are to do unto others. So if intolerance is your concern, religion is your solution, not your problem.

Does religion produce isolation? Yes, if one seeks to withdraw from the world, perhaps as a monk, anchorite, or sannyasin. One grave problem with psychology is that it discourages and tries to prevent this often healthy and life-giving option. True, others may also shun you because you are religious—but to blame religion for that is like blaming Jews for the Holocaust.

In conclusion—for now—I’d like to endorse healthy psychology.

Advent Music

 

Lyrics by Christina Rossetti

The Winter Solstice

Peekaboo!

As I write this, tomorrow at 10:03 am EST is the winter solstice. I try to remember to mark it on Facebook every year.

What disturbs me is the common inference that in doing this I am celebrating a pagan holiday.

Pagans have no special claim to the solstice. It is a natural phenomenon. All cultures have always found it deeply symbolic. If you believe in the Christian God, he fashioned it, and it is a manifestation of God’s power. It is God speaking to us.

A friend who visited Machu Picchu was told, or deduced, that the Intihuatana stone there, aligned with the sun at the solstice, was intended as an anchor to prevent the sun from disappearing. Supposedly the shamans harnessed the sun from here and pulled it up from the horizon.

I do not believe ancient peoples were that stupid. Of course they knew the sun was going to rise again without human intervention. The point of the stone, and the solstice, was to symbolically harness the Earth to the Sun, not the Sun to the Earth. The solstice, to them as to us, is the promise that, like the immortal skies, we too might rise again. 

Advent music

 Oh Come, Oh Come, Emmanuel, sung in Hebrew, Arabic, and English

Did Rob Reiner Deserve it?

There is a highly discreditable human tendency, whenever evil occurs, to blame the victim. This makes us feel safer from evil ourselves, and gives us an alibi for doing nothing to help. Moreover, opining about another’s family situation is gossip. We cannot really know.

Nevertheless, I think it is important to comment on the issue of Nick Reiner, accused of having murdered his parents Rob and Michele Reiner.

Most relevant, I think, is a comment from an extra on the movie they made—that Nick came across as spoiled and privileged. But really, all you need to know is that he was a drug addict. Then it all immediately makes sense.

I believe Rob Reiner was indeed responsible for his own death. But not because he treated his son badly. He spoiled his child. This is tragically common, so not really to his great discredit. And it is on the advice of experts: we are, they tell us, supposed to “love unconditionally,” and avoid punishments. Children need “self-esteem.” If they behave badly, you need to treat them better. The problem must be a “lack of self-esteem.”

This is clearly the path the Reiners followed. They were “progressive.” They respected the experts. They did all the latest and right things. None of this old-fashioned Biblical or Victorian nonsense about “spare the rod and spoil the child,” or "Whoever spares the rod hates their children." Indeed, in their minds, the experts did not go far enough.

The most likely result will be a hopeless narcissist. As the Bible warns, they will not have any clear guidance as to right and wrong. They will be without any self-discipline. And they will likely have a godlike conception of their own self-worth and desserts: a narcissist.

A child so raised will rarely appreciate having been pampered. Like the girl in the parable “The Princess and the Pea,” they will assume they deserve it, will have no tolerance for suffering of any kind, and so their demands will grow and grow. They will inevitably grow to the point where you cannot satisfy them, and then they will blame and condemn you for not providing. And maybe slit your throat in your sleep. 

It will also make them wholly dependent—on you, or on someone else, or on alcohol or drugs. A snowflake. If not these, then on any or all of the vices, for these are addictions in the same way: pride, envy, greed, sloth, gluttony, wrath, lust. See Hunter Biden.

Disturbingly, we have always raised girls this way. Perhaps this is because it is always easier and more pleasant to spoil a child. And the parents can traditionally assume that, in the end, the girl will be someone else’s problem. Perhaps too because spoiling will make her dependent, so more likely to marry.

Spoiling a child is of course more common in wealthy families, because it is easier for them to thoroughly spoil a child. But do not assume this. The British upper class traditionally sent their scions to spartan boarding schools to avoid this; or handed them over to a stern nanny. It is probably even more common in fatherless families, because mothers are more likely to pamper and spoil a child. Which explains a lot about crime in poor neighbourhoods. It is also common in families where the father is highly successful. Because his attention to his career can mean less time to attend to the children—this is left more completely in the hands of the mother, who is again liable to spoil. And he may compensate by throwing gifts at them.

This is a dramatic example of our current civilization seeming determined to run off a cliff. Perhaps the Reiner case, tragic as it is, will lead to some awakening.

For Advent

 One of Gordon Lightfoot's finest.

The End Times

 

I confess to getting annoyed at nominal Christians who go on about the end times. Because this goes counter to what the Bible actually says.

The main point in the Bible is “the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.” (Matthew 24:44). “About that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matthew 24:36) “You do not know when that time will come.” (Mark 13: 33)

So watching for signs of the end is at best ignoring the Bible. Claiming to know is blasphemous.

Millenarians generally point to wars around the world as the sign. Look at Ukraine! And Gaza! “There will be wars and rumours of wars.” But what the Bible says is that, when you hear wars and rumours of wars, “see to it that you are not alarmed.” These are “birth pangs,” not the end. “The end is still to come.” (Matthew 24:6-8)

If wars are signs of the end times, these signs have been present since the day Jesus spoke these words—and for long before. Can anyone claim the level of conflict around the world is greater now than in the 1940s? We are actually in a long period of relative peace. Stephen Pinker has made the argument that violence ha been declining throughout history.

But we must be alert, I am told, to avoid the Tribulation. At a particular sign, everyone has to flee to the mountains. This is from Matthew 24:15-22; Mark 13: 14-23; Like 21:20-24. So it makes sense to be watching for signs.

But what is the sign? Matthew and Mark say “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong.” This quotes the Book of Daniel; it refers to a statue of the Seleucid emperor being erected in the temple in Jerusalem. More generally, then, the defilement or desolation of the Temple.

One problem: the temple was demolished in 70 AD.

Taken literally, Jesus is predicting some local event. He says “people in Judea” should flee to the mountains. Not everyone around the world: people in Judea. 

Luke serves to clarify. Luke says “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near.” “Let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city.” “Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” (Luke 21: 20-24). Jesus is predicting the desolation of Jerusalem, not the end times. This indeed happened, in 70 AD. And it was indeed a bad time to be a Jew in Judea. This is when the diaspora began.

There are, indeed, many more “signs” in Revelations: the four horsemen and the seven seals and so on. But the timeline seems to stretch for thousands of years: “When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison 8and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—and to gather them for battle.” (Rev. 20:7). That’s rather imprecise if you want to use this to predict the end times. All you can say from this is that the end is due in the next few thousand years.

If, indeed, Revelations is really about the future, rather than events in eternity. It seems more reasonable to see things like beasts rising from the sea and so forth as spiritual events, not things that are happening in the material, temporal world.

And how does the doom patrol deal with this?  In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus says, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” Some standing there as he spoke. They will not taste death first. How does this tally with waiting now for the kingdom to come? Clearly, by this, it has already come. 

Luke illuminates: “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.” (Luke 17:20-21)

The end times are not something coming soon or late, but something in the direct experience of every one of us. And that is where our focus needs to be: on our own hearts, not the news of the day. To project it all on others, in Gaza or in Russia or in Washington or Zurich. is to avoid our own necessary transformation.

Advent Music

Rob Reiner

Donald Trump badly damaged his own legacy recently with ungracious comments on the murder of Rob Reiner. He reminded us once again that he is not a good man, only a brave man. Perhaps we can never expect much more from a political leader, The leadership of this world is given over to Satan.

Anyone who celebrates another’s death is not on God’s side. The beginning and ending of life are sacred matters, and must be approached reverently.

In the case of Rob Reiner, anyone who thinks his political views justify pleasure at his murder is of the Devil’s party. Politics is a never highly principled: it is “the art of the possible.” And, I might say, creatives are often deeply misguided on politics, for the creditable reason that they are not cynical enough to understand it. They are too idealistic. 

But Reiner’s contributions to the culture, and therefore to everyone’s quality of life, are in principle immortal. Politics is trivial by comparison. He was the director of This Is Spinal Tap, Stand By Me, Misery, The Princess Bride, and When Harry Met Sally. What would American culture be without these films? There are lines, scenes, in those films that have entered the language, and so aided our understanding of the world. “I don’t think that word means what you think it means.” “As you wish.” “Inconceivable.” “My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die!” “These go to eleven.” “Their appeal is becoming more selective.” The famous scene of Meg Ryan faking orgasm, and the woman in the next booth saying “I’ll have what she’s having.” I had to stop in at Katz’s Deli for a meal when I visited New York. It had become a kind of holy ground.

You might say these are really examples of great screenwriting, not great directing. But it is both. Reiner somehow got these great lines and scenes out of several screenwriters, after all. The real trick, it seems to me, is that he somehow got exceptional performances out of his actors. The delivery is a huge part of why these quotes have been memorable. Consider the performances he got out of Kathy Bates in Misery; has she ever done a better performance for anyone else? Meg Ryan in that deli scene; has she ever done better for anyone else? Mandy Patinkin as Inigo Montoya. These were actors acting at the highest level, not realistic, not method acting, God forbid, but truly vivid. Acting of the Cagney school, something you see only with the great directors, like Orson Welles, the Coen brothers, Stanley Kubrick, Alfred Hitchcock. Acting that burns an image into your memory. And Reiner got it out of actor after actor. So it cannot just have been them. It was something he was doing. 

Perhaps Reiner’s later films are not up to his earlier standard. I cannot say; I stopped watching adult films in general some years ago, when I had little ones. Since then, it has mostly only been something I did on long-range flights. And his great films, like most great films, have been slow burns: not huge box office at first, but growing in reputation over time. 

And now we will see no more. That is an incalculable tragedy.

Christmas Is Coming

 

The Canada Problem

I came across a video of Tucker Carlson and Matt Walsh discussing Canada. They are particularly appalled by MAiD, it being applied to the young and mentally ill, and the harvesting of organs. Carlson says he would feel safer now living in Communist China than in Canada. And he suggested the US should invade Canada on human rights grounds. 

Is this hyperbole? No doubt, but it is interesting to hear it from someone able to be more objective. I fear Canadians are like the proverbial frog in the boiling pot. As the temperature rises incrementally, we cannot tell when it is time to jump. Things today still look mostly like yesterday. Okay, another censorship bill is moving through committee. Okay, a big steel mill closed down, and a big pulp mill. Okay, the latest judgment says aborigines own title to part of Vancouver. Okay, MAiD is expanding. Okay, nobody is investigating CCP influence over elections. But I haven’t been directly affected, have I? Sure, the groceries are more expensive than last week—but I have a lot wrapped up in this house, in this neighbourhood, in this job. It won’t go on in this direction forever...

First they came for the trade unionists...

But talking about invading Canada is crazy talk.

The problem is that Canada elected this government. And recently re-elected it. While foreign interference may have affected a few seats, and Communist China does seem to hold influence over the current government, the Carney regime reasonably reflects the popular will. Therefore there is no “human rights” case to invade. It would be exactly parallel to Putin invading Ukraine, “to unseat Nazi elements in its government.” It would be interfering with another country’s internal affairs.

There would have to be some direct threat to the security of the United States to make the thing even remotely legal in international law.

What the Trump government should do is to offer Canadians automatic refugee status. There has been some talk of doing this for Brits. This way the US could staunch their demographic decline with a body of immigrants perfectly suited to assimilate quickly, generally well-educated, and well-disposed to the USA. Unlike, say, Somalis. Some, it is true, might really be economic migrants, but this is far less likely to be the case than with a Third World country—they would be coming usually genuinely because they embrace American values. American values are the same as traditional British or Canadian values, after all.

This would of course accelerate the decline of Canada. Brains will drain South. This too is to the US’s advantage: a diminished Canada could not push for hard bargains over their resources.

At worst, might Canada become a bigger Cuba or Venezuela, turning to China as sponsor, an enemy right on America’s doorstep?

Then it might be useful to have a large body of Canadian refugees in the USA, able to freely organize and arm. It may not have worked for the Fenians, or at the Bay of Pigs, but it has worked for others. A government in waiting.

I’m surprised Trump hasn’t thought of it.

Gaudete

It's Gaudete Sunday. Time for one of my favourite songs.

Christus est natus!

 

Jesus's Dysfunctional Family

The Holy Family of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, is commonly held up as a model of what a family should be. Back in Catholic school, we were instructed to inscribe “JMJ” at the top of every new copybook page.

I believe the evidence is plain that it was in fact a dysfunctional family. 

We we know this from the only evidence we have of Jesus’s childhood or youth. Luke 2:

‘When he was twelve years old, they went up to the festival, according to the custom. After the festival was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”

“Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?” But they did not understand what he was saying to them.’

Jesus was, in effect, saying to Joseph “You’re not my real father.” A rebellious son—but surely, being who he was, not a rebel without a cause.

More striking is the fact that his parents did not notice his absence for a full day. They were, at best, careless parents—care being the essential duty of a parent.

Just as Jesus disowns his father here, he later disowns his mother. At Cana, when she asks him to perform a miracle, he responds, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?”

He also disowns her at Matthew 12:46:

‘While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”

He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers.”’

At Mark 6:4, Jesus says “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home.” 

He is saying that he has not received honour in his family or in his home.

Later, he says his followers must despise (or love less, depending on the translation) their father and their mother for his sake.

So much for family values, and for the happy happy joy joy Holy Family.

It also stands to reason that Jesus must have grown up in an at least somewhat dysfunctional family. That, after all, is the human condition; that is what original sin is about. All the families of the prophets of the Old Testament are clearly dysfunctional. Beginning with Adam, running through Abraham, who abandoned one son in the desert and was prepared to kill the other; Noah, who cursed his son Ham, and for what seems a trivial matter; Lot, who had sex with both his daughters; David, who killed a man to take his wife; Solomon, who took his many alien wives; Isaac or Jacob, both of whom played favourites shamelessly; and so on. It is a persistent theme: the sins of the fathers are visited on the sons. Why would Jesus’s case be different from all the other prophets? Indeed, as the point of his incarnation was to take on himself all the sufferings of mankind, the mission would not be complete if he did not experience a dysfunctional family, did not encounter original sin. This obvious truth has been whitewashed out of our conception of the Holy Family to support the common prejudice in favour of “family values.” Which, like tribalism or nationalism or racism, is a dangerous idolatry.

Now for the second half of the puzzle. If the family was dysfunctional, how does Mary avoid any responsibility? How does she remain without sin, as is the teaching of the Catholic church?

This is possible only if you accept the Biblical duty of women. See Ephesians 5:22:

“Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”

Mary remains free of blame so long as she was following her husband’s guidance. Which, presumably, Mary did. “Let it be done unto me according to your word.” Any guilt for family dysfunction then falls on Joseph. When Mary later seems to oppose Jesus and his mission, Joseph is not present. But she appears “with his brothers.” So she is again, presumably, simply accepting and supporting his male relatives, to whom proper authority falls on the death of her husband. The blame is theirs.

This might be argued to put women in a secondary place. In a sense true, but it also makes it much easier for them to enter heaven. Their moral path is much easier, their burden light.

This does not lead to the conclusion that Joseph is not a saint in heaven, either. Saints are not without sin. Witness the prophets listed above. Only Mary is without sin. We know Joseph did, at least at one point, on hearing God’s command, demonstrate heroic virtue: in accepting Mary to wife although she was pregnant, and not by him.

I would presume he had his time in purgatory; but that should have earned his salvation.

Who Killed the Jews?

The synagogue on St. Andrew's Street

Perhaps it is just the algorithm, or perhaps it is the culture, but suddenly Nick Fuentes is everywhere in my YouTube feed. So I listened to a bit more of him.

He claims that Jews blame “white people,” by which I presume he means Christians, for the Holocaust. And we “white people” should stop feeling guilty about it.

That hit me out of left field. It had never occurred to me to feel guilty about the Holocaust. I had always considered myself one of the group targeted by Hitler, someone who might have been in the death camps—along with St. Maximilian Kolbe, St. Edith Stein, Corrie Ten Boom, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Claus von Stauffenberg, and many Polish priests. We Canadians, we Christians, were the ones who stood up to Hitler, and liberated the camps. Why would I feel guilt?

Of course, it is equally nonsensical for “white” Canadians to feel guilt over slavery...

Now that Fuentes has pointed it out, however, it does seem true that Jews feel differently: that they do, wrongly, blame Christians for the Holocaust. I recall a Jewish fellow grad student informing me solemnly, as a Catholic, that all Catholic children are taught that the Jews killed Christ. I assured her she was wrong; I had never heard this in Catholic schools. Her response was that I must have gone to a particularly progressive school. Invincible prejudice--on her part.

Another Jewish friend once pointed out as a dark irony that the old synagogue in Kensington Market was on St. Andrew’s Street. I admit that is mildly amusing, but why not? Is this any darker than a synagogue being on Ulster Street?

And I recall Jewish protests over a Catholic convent being located near Auschwitz. As though it were offensive to pray for or acknowledge the Christian victims of the Holocaust.

I may feel at one with my Jewish brothers and sisters. But that is only half the equation. Do they feel at one with me?

This is more or less what Scott Adams concluded about blacks: there was no point trying for solidarity, so long as blacks were determined to hate whites.

I think this is the essential point being made by Fuentes. While his views might sound reprehensible, all he is doing is applying the same standards across the board. If it is reprehensible for “whites” to talk like this, it must be equally reprehensible for blacks or Muslims or Somalis or Jews to talk like this. If it is reprehensible for men to talk like this, it must be equally reprehensible for women to talk like this about men. That is now the only possible equality. If blacks and Jews and Muslims and everybody else are tribalist, segregationist, and openly racist, then whites have to be the same, or face extinction. Fuentes uses the term “genocide” here, which is outrageous; but he is using it just the way all other groups are now using it. On the same logic, if women are entitled to special privileges, men must demand the same, or be steamrolled.

It is an ugly world, but it is not a world Fuentes made. Churchill was not the warmonger. One cannot unilaterally declare peace. 

On Not Being White

 

All that really matters in life, they say.

Not long ago, in some casual discussion, another participant casually said, “we white people have to...” I immediately gagged mentally. I am not a white person. I have never thought of myself as a white person. I am offended at being involuntarily enlisted in this imaginary tribe. I am offended at someone assuming affinity with me on this basis. And this is also, I believe, the first time I have ever heard a fellow Canadian speak in such terms. Not “we Canadians,” but “we white people”? This bodes ill.

The notion of “white” and “black” as descriptions for people is obviously imported from the United States, where it has been historically significant. It is a framing imposed illicitly on Canada, as on most of the rest of the world. Growing up in Eastern Canada, there were no blacks, so there were no whites. Nobody thought in such terms; why would they? The tribal fault lines here were whether you were Anglophone or Francophone, Catholic or Protestant, and, in many areas, Irish or English. Making it about race somewhere else is a way to ignore our own history, and perhaps perpetuate our prejudices. Affirmative action for a few pet blacks or First Nations, for example, is a great way to avoid hiring any Irish. 

As one of Irish Catholic heritage, the subtext of assimilating me to some fictitious “white” tribe is to ignore my distinct religious and cultural heritage and assimilate me to the English. My ancestors suffered terribly and fought for half a millennium to preserve their own religion and heritage. Accordingly, the idea that I am “white” is deeply offensive.

Ultimately, though, my tribe is not Irishry. My tribe is Catholicism. Skin colour is the ultimate in superficiality: what matters is the values one holds, and it is for those values that my own ancestors actually suffered and died. Accordingly, I feel more spontaneous affinity with a Filipino or African Catholic than with an Anglican of pale complexion--although I hope I am not prejudiced against Anglicans. I know with a fellow Catholic we have more shared values. There is more of the essential sense of tribalism: I know I do not need to watch my back.

Next to that, my tribe is Canadian. With someone else who has grown up in Canada, I know we too have shared values, many shared cultural memories. Although, again, I hope I am not prejudiced against non-Canadians. But there it is, the tribal glue: a level of mutual trust.

 Yet we are supposed to be preoccupied with skin tone? If that is what you are about, and not the content of your character, you are not much of a person, are you?

The Case for Limiting the Franchise

“No taxation without representation”: that is the slogan on which the American Revolution was fought. And I think to most of us it makes intuitive sense. It is simple justice: if I am paying for the government, I have a right to a say in it, in how my money is spent. But it implies an interesting corollary that seems generally to be missed: no representation without taxation. If you are not paying taxes, it is unjust that you have a say in how other people’s money is being spent. 

This used to be generally accepted wisdom, so the franchise was limited by property requirements. Or one earned the right to vote by serving in the military: that too was having skin in the game.

There is an obvious danger, with universal adult suffrage, that those who are not contributing can over time band together and vote themselves more and more benefits and free money, knowing it is all coming out of someone else’s pockets. There is a famous quote from Alexander Tytler in the 18th century: 

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”

Tytler is not the first to notice this. That would probably be Ibn Khalud, who pointed out this cycle in the 14th century. Over time, as Ibn Khaldun observed, governments grow until they strangle the productive economy, and the society collapses.

It would seem that Western Europe and North America are well into this cycle. We are at least at “From abundance to selfishness.”

So all this is an argument, radical as it may sound to unfamiliar ears, yet obvious to our ancestors, to limit the franchise. Full democracy is a dead end. Among those who realized this, notably, were the American founding fathers, who carefully placed checks and balances on full democracy.  

Nobody who earns their living from government should really have a vote. They have an immediate conflict of interest. This means civil servants should not vote—they could not back in the 19th century. That would include teachers, say, and most medical professionals. And of course politicians. Less critically, but by the same logic, no one receiving welfare, disability, a student grant or a government pension should vote. Nor the executives of any corporation receiving government funding.

This would preserve a social safety net, but give some incentive, if mostly psychological, to climb out of dependence if you can. 

Nick Fuentes vs. Piers Morgan

I don’t remember when I first became aware of Nick Fuentes. It was not long ago; perhaps weeks ago. And I had never heard him, only of him. He was, it seems, someone who loved Hitler and Stalin. Someone anathema to the right and the MAGA right, like the John Birchers back in the dahs of William F. Buckley. A radioactive character.

Last night Piers Morgan had him on for a long interview. I understand why. Tucker Carlson has been taking a huge amount of criticism for featuring Fuentes, and giving him a “softball interview,” not long ago, and not challenging his outrageous beliefs. “Platforming” him. So Morgan thought he could cash in on the publicity by also having him on, and then grilling him properly. Doing the supposed public service of showing everyone what a monster Fuentes really is, and more importantly, showing that he is a better journalist and more reliable right-winger than Tucker Carlson.

So I finally heard Fuentes speak for himself on Piers Morgan’s program.

Fuentes came across as honest, kind, likable, and highly intelligent. Piers Morgan came across in as dishonest, nasty, incompetent, and clueless. And the comments were some of the funniest things I have read in donkeys’ years. All pro-Fuentes.

Rather like Trump, Fuentes is saying things everyone knows are true, but no one is allowed to say. He is deliberately saying it in provocative, very direct, even hyperbolic ways, as a liberating protest against censorship and hypocrisy.

“I’m a racist, sure. Everyone is racist.” And Morgan uses that against him like a club. Yet that is just what the left is always saying about “whites”: that we are all racists, no matter what we think. So okay, so what? What’s the point in saying no? Fuentes is not a racist—he avers that all are equal before God. His point is that we need to get past this obsession with racism—with race.

“Hitler was cool.” Fuentes is not endorsing Hitler—he is stating a fact, plain and in our faces, that we deny at our peril. Why did anyone think a plurality of Germans voted him into office? If we cannot see the attractiveness of Hitler, we will vote another one into office. Of course Hitler was cool: he had a real sense of style. Great uniforms, great speeches, great rallies. He was not a “madman,” and he was not a one-off.

Fuentes’s most notorious quote is this, I gather: “"Jews are running society, women need to shut the f--- up, blacks need to be imprisoned for the most part, and we would live in paradise ... White men need to run the household, they need to run the country, they need to run the companies."

This is of course deliberately outrageous. Fuentes himself apparently does not believe this as stated. It is hyperbole. Yes, Jews are highly influential—the question is whether this is a bad thing. Yes, women have a tendency to talk too much—to gossip, for example. Everyone knows this in their hearts, but cannot say it. And the Bible says women should defer to their husbands and keep silent in public gatherings. “For the most part” is clearly wrong, but blacks are obviously more inclined to violent crime than “whites.”

Fuentes made a lot of good and rarely heard points, about “performative cruelty,” about the value of celibacy outside of marriage, which seemed to go right over Morgan’s head.

But the essential point is this, and it is Fuentes’s essential point: if I disagree with someone else’s opinion, is it right to hate them or condemn them as a person or try to silence them or bully them? Of course not. This is not fair or honourable or Christian. Yet that is what Morgan and our present society immediately does.

Fuentes is a brave and honest man, and seems to be a true Christian.

NDP DEI DOA

The current federal NDP leadership race is attracting little attention. The NDP has faded into irrelevance. And there is no one in the current crop of contenders who seems likely to change that. No one is particularly prominent, there are no obvious flashes of charisma.

If the NDP is in this position, this has a lot to do with poor leadership choices in the past. It ought to have more vitality than this—the populist let in the US, under figures like AOC and Bernie Sanders, has been more energetic. As has the populist left in the UK, under Corbyn or Galloway. But a couple of times, just as it seemed to have broken through into relevance, the NDP seems to have gone for DEI hires at the helm. It has not turned out well.

Most obviously, there was the defenestration of Tom Mulcair, who won them 44 seats, and who had been a provincial cabinet minister in Quebec, in favour of Jagmeet Singh, who had been a provincial MLA. Singh defeated Charlie Angus, who had a seat in parliament and was an established author, publisher, and founder of charitable institutions. Not to mention, Angus had charisma. Singh has all the charisma of a high school student council president. One must assume Singh was elected due to his ethnicity. 

He led the NDP to seven seats and the loss of party status.

Don’t say this was due to racism among voters. I never saw or heard a single attack on him due to his ethnicity. It was due to sheer political incompetence, jettisoning any trace of principle and managing to fully identify the NDP with the larger, and widely unpopular, Liberal Party.

Their earlier error was to vote in Audrey McLaughlin as leader in 1989. She had been an MP for only two years; and won then only because she was given a special exemption from defending the federal party platform. The party chose her over Dave Barret, who has been the premier of B.C. It seems clear they elected her on her sex; so they could boast being the first major party to elect a woman as leader. 

And she led the NDP from 44 seats down to 9. Because McLaughlin had nothing to sell, just more of the same old, at the very moment that populist ferment was breaking out in the West. Instead, the upstart Reform Party took all those anti-establishment votes.

This is a useful public demonstration that DEI hires do not turn out well. McLaughlin and Singh were out of their depth. Merit is the only principle that matters.

How would you feel if your heart surgeon were a DEI hire?

I'm All Right, Jack

My favourite prayer is the Salve Regina, “Hail Holy Queen,” not least because of its line “to you do we cry out, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears.” A priest of my acquaintance actually objected to this line. He, like so many supposed Christians, was of the “happy happy joy joy” school of Christianity. “This world is not a valley of tears,” he scoffed.

But I say, anyone who is at home and comfortable in this world is not of the kingdom.

Matthew 5:4:

Blessed are those who mourn,
For they shall be comforted.

Luke 6: 25: 

Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep.

Ecclesiastes 1:14:

 I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

Matthew 6:19-21:

 Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal;  but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

1 John 2:15:

Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them

So there’s that.

Anyone of good heart must see the injustices of the world. Anyone who is nevertheless happy with things as they are is saying “I’m all right, Jack.” 

The world is a battle between good and evil. Anyone who does not see this is on the wrong side.

Why the World Is Going Mad

Charlie and Erika Kirk

Demonic possession is real. It is as Chesterton supposedly said, “When people cease to believe in God, they do not then believe in nothing, but in anything.”

This is something Jesus said in the Gospels: 

“When an impure spirit comes out of a person, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that person is worse than the first.” – Matthew 12:43-5. See also Luke 11: 24-5.

The only way to avoid delusion is to make sure your house is occupied. Occupied, that is, by a permanent relationship with God. Descartes, too, reasoned this through, step by step. God alone is our assurance of the reality of anything else. Otherwise we cannot tell delusion from reality.

Belief in God is therefore our sole protection against delusion. Which is again why Christianity spread so quickly throughout the ancient Roman world, and then through Northern Europe, and then through the Americas, and now through Africa: because it was able to efficiently cast out demons, which is to say delusions, which were then so prevalent. 

And this is again why “mental illness” and mass psychosis has again become so prevalent in recent years, since the early 20th century. It is because with scientism, faith in God has been in decline. This way madness lies.

Our intuition tells us things are not random. We see the patterns, especially the brightest among us, showing some intelligence is obviously behind events. Things are not random. We have been lied to that they are. If we will not accept that God and the Devil are behind it all, we will resort to conspiracy theories, which become paranoid delusions: the classic schizophrenic delusions. It is the CIA. It is the Jews. It is the greedy capitalists. It is aliens. It is the WEF. It is the Vatican. It is the Jesuits. They are out to get me. They are trying to control my thoughts.

It is demons trying to control your thoughts. They may at times use other people for their purposes.

Not that all conspiracy theories are wrong. Which makes it all the harder to resist the temptation to see them everywhere.

I believe Candace Owens has recently fallen off this wagon, and us an illustrative case in point—despite the fact that she has fairly recently publicly converted to Catholicism. Not all who say “Lord Lord” really believe. I don’t think her conversion has been sincere—more like an expression of anti-semitism in reaction to her employers at the Daily Wire.

To my mind, the clearest evidence Owens is off the glory train is her conviction that Brigitte Macron, the French president’s wife, is a man. Suppose she is. Why do we care? Why is it anyone else’s business? This is gossip, which is always at best a temptation to the sin of calumny. And this looks like the sin of calumny. That Candace is going so hard after this shows she is at best ignorant of her supposed Catholic faith. 

But it is an impressive, compelling conspiracy theory—and salacious. Imagine—the entire French government and the world press has been subverted! What else might this explain?

Ownes has also, of course, gone after the Jews. She responded “Jesus is king” to Ben Shapiro in a heated exchange, seeming to me to use her religion as a club. Not good-hearted, at best.

I always take antisemitism as a sign of the Devil. The Jews are, after all, God’s chosen people. The Christian Bible says so; Jesus himself affirms it in the gospels. And all the evidence of history says so: the miraculous Jewish survival and record of accomplishments for civilization in general say so. Anyone who goes after the Jews is explicitly going against God, therefore, and committing the sin of Cain: envy.

But the Jews are the convenient universal scapegoat if you are craving a good conspiracy theory. They are a closed group, and they are amazingly influential.

Finally, Owens is now going after Turning Point USA, accusing them, and Charlie Kirk’s widow Erika, of conspiring to assassinate Charlie Kirk.

I can see why she thinks so. My intuition tallies with hers in finding Erika Kirk’s reaction to his death profoundly insincere. And it is all delightfully salacious. It is always self-gratifying to think ill of successful people. For women, of a beautiful and accomplished woman like Erika Kirk, a former beauty queen.

But look at the practical effects of Owens’ campaign: it is attacking the victims of a crime in their time of grief. It is calculated to destroy Kirk’s organization, his legacy, and all that he was trying to do. If Erika Kirk did not assassinate Charlie Kirk, Candace Owens is trying to do so. This is the sort of calling-card the Devil leaves in his wake. He is always doing the opposite of what he pretends to do.

Owens’ conviction that French intelligence and/or Israel and/or the CIA or someone are trying to assassinate her is the next step in her paranoia.

It is not lovely to watch.

The Thomas King Affair

 

Thomas King

Thomas King has just joined a long list of “pretendians”: people who have become famous because of their “First Nations” ancestry, who then are revealed not to be native at all.

Here’s a partial list: King, Buffy Sainte-Marie, “Iron-Eyes” Cody, “Grey Owl,” Elizabeth Warren, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Ward Churchill, Sacheen Littlefeather, who famously accepted Marlon Brando’s Oscar, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, Chief Thundercloud, Joseph Boyden.

There is something odd here. Firstly, the prevalence of pretendians shows clearly that many of European ancestry can easily pass as an Indian: Thomas King is actually German and Greek, Sainte-Marie and “Iron-Eyes Cody” were both Italian, Sacheen Littlefeather was Hispanic, Archie Belaney, “Grey Owl,” was English. By appearance, no one can tell.

 And it is not just non-Indians who cannot tell the difference. Indians cannot tell the difference either. There is clearly nothing in physical appearance that consistently distinguishes Indians from Europeans.

My cousins have their Indian cards. Half of them are blonde and blue-eyed.

How can this be? Native Canadians supposedly developed in complete isolation from Europe, far more so that, say, sub-Saharan blacks, or East Asians. Yet in those latter cases physical differences are plain to see.

The obvious explanation is that, over the past few centuries, there has been a thorough integration of blood lines. In genetic terms, there is no separate Indian “race.” 

But the second question is why so many people want to be thought to be Indians, and why it is such a problem for others if they do. It is also pretty easy for any European to pretend to be Irish, say, or Jewish, but few seem to, and if they do, nobody thinks it is a problem.

People do not want to be considered Irish or Jewish, by and large, because they risk being discriminated against. And if they choose to identify as Irish or Jewish regardless, they are greeted with open arms by those communities. So “pretend Jews” are not a problem.

If, by contrast, people want to be considered Indian, and the Indian community considers this a problem, it is the strongest evidence that Indians are actually advantaged by that identity: there is discrimination, and it is entirely in their favour.

As ought to be obvious. In Canada, they get many benefits by treaty. There are many “DEI” or “affirmative action” programs favouring them, in just about any field.

But apart from this, Indians always command great social prestige. In New England, people claim rank by boasting that their ancestors came on the Mayflower. To which Will Rogers was able to boast that his ancestors were already there to greet them. Logically, this trumps in terms of social class. In Virginia, the equivalent boast by the upper classes is that they can trace descent from Pocahontas.

And every Indian woman is traditionally thought to be an “Indian princess.”

Patent medicine firms used to hire Indians to sell their products—"snake oil.” It gained them credibility. Everybody trusted an endorsement by an Indian. It is a bit of an exaggeration to draw a parallel with the British tradition of claiming “By appointment to His Majesty,” but it is on the same spectrum.

It has always been to one’s advantage, therefore, to claim Indian ancestry. It bought respect, sympathy, and attention. And everyone traditionally wants to claim some.

More recently, Canadian “First Nations” seem to be evolving into a legally recognized upper class, with proprietary claims on all the land, just as in old Europe, and the right to be consulted and to veto measures they do not like, just like the House of Lords.

The Devil's Century

Leo XIII

It’s time for some good news. Things may look dark, but it is true that often the darkest hour is just before the dawn.

Christian civilization, sometimes called “Western civilization,” seemed to lose its mojo at about the time of the First World War. So for about a hundred years. As it happens, this fits a prediction by a pope—Pope Leo XIII. He had a vision at the altar that Satan was to be given control for a hundred years—the 20th century. Now, perhaps symbolically, we have Pope Leo XIV. We have seen the worst of the dispiritedness of Christendom in the past few years, with declining church attendance, rising suicide, mental illness, and addiction, mass immigration from non-Christian lands, the toppling of statues, anti-“white” discrimination in historically “white” countries, and postmodern denial of reality itself. But there are signs that is turning around. It has not hit the general public yet, but prominent figures are publicly converting to Christianity almost daily. The sense is that the “New Atheists” have lost the argument, and theism is ascendant in the academy. Scientism is losing credibility with scandals like the Covid countermeasures and vaccine, the draconian measures demanded in the name of climate change, and the inability to reproduce results in published papers. 

Meantime, the computer revolution and now the AI revolution are strong evidence that civilization is not moribund, but more likely on the threshold of a new renaissance, with which should come renewed optimism and pride. 

The aggression of Islam has also caused “Westerners” to realize that they are, in the end, fundamentally culturally Christian.

Civilizations can have bad centuries. It is time for Christendom to come thundering back. Reinforced, I might add, by the renewed cultural vitality of East Asia: Japan, Korea, Thailand, China, Vietnam. Cultural exchange is the essential vitamin of culture.

Despite draconian measures by governments, there is an obvious worldwide trend towards so-called “populist” movements. MAGA in the USA; Reform now leading the polls in the UK; France’s RN and Marine LePen; Meloni in Italy; Milei in Argentina; AfD in Germany; Wilders in the Netherlands. There is an obvious tide towards greater equality, greater democratization, greater freedom; a throwing off of elites. It seems the next stage of liberalization, as happened in the Age of Enlightenment. With better communications and access to information, with everyone owning a printing press and a broadcast license, there is greater ability for the general public to communicate and coordinate, and less scope for government repression. It will be increasingly difficult for oppressive governments to keep the lid on. We have seen this in the Arab spring, in the Canadian trucker convoy, in the Gen X protests in Nepal or Mexico. Governments are scared, and this is why they are trying draconian measures. But I think the technology is against them.

There is suddenly a lot of chatter about antivirals like ivermectin and fenbendazole as possible cancer cures. They are also cheap—out of patent. They are non-intrusive, with apparently few side effects. They may work on other viruses as well—the flu, the common cold. Imagine a world without these diseases. 

Once upon a time, we did not know any effective treatment for bacterial infections; and many died of tuberculosis, or gangrene. Then we discovered antibiotics. It was surely only a matter of time before we discovered the equivalent for viruses. Perhaps we have. 

Many are worried about job losses due to AI; that is surely one common cause for alarm. The job cuts seem to be already beginning. It is hard to conceive of a white-collar job that cannot be done soon and cheaper by AI. But this is looking only at the downside. This also means that the very expensive products of white-collar work will soon be cheaper. Going to law, drafting contracts, accounting, medical care, and the like, could soon be almost free. For consumers, this should mean a time of great abundance—and we ae all consumers.

Elon Musk has an unbeatable track record for seeing what is coming. And he sees a world in which there is “universal high income” without work. Everyone will be “far wealthier than the wealthiest person today.” He sees this within ten or twenty years. We will work if we feel like it.

That does not sound so bad.

We will need more power for all this; and many have long been alarmed about global warming. But improved nuclear power generation, including fusion, seems to be coming onstream now; not to mention much improved batteries, better solar power collectors, and geothermal options. Energy, a major bottleneck, may soon become cheap, non-polluting, and abundant.

This might all be wrecked by war. But the lesson of the current war in Ukraine may be that war is no longer worth the cost. And if it is fought, it will probably in future be fought by drones and automated vehicles attacking infrastructure. This, at worst, seems to mean fewer deaths.

Are we on the dawn of a golden age?