All Somalis?

The public conversation is clearly shifting. Recently I heard Trump condemn Somalis in America without bothering to add the formerly obligatory “not all Somalis.” I hear increasingly of “black fatigue,” meaning people getting tired of the constant demands and hostile attitude of blacks. A reporter and author laments that nobody trusts the word of Canadian “First Nations” any longer. That is striking, since until recently the governing principle of public discourse, absurd as it was, was that no Indian could ever tell a lie.

Not long ago, you used to have to say you supported feminism. Now I hear men complaining about Karens, modern women in general, and feminism all over the Internet.

Of course, you still hear also from the Karens, oblivious to all this. You still hear claims of white genocide against First Nations, and demands for reparations for slavery and colonialism and for simply being male or white. 

But what has happened, I think, is that the inevitable openness of the Internet, in which everyone has a printing press and a broadcast studio, has finally burst the bonds of censorship. This of course after an obvious and desperate rear-guard effort to shut down all unauthorized opinions. But it has now failed.

People are suddenly allowed to speak their minds again. Now we are suddenly hearing both sides.

This of course necessarily means hearing some opinions with which we will strongly disagree; ideas that may upset us. But this is necessary in order to hold an honest, open dialogue. This is necessary to know where truth lies, and where public opinion lies. Much argument is the antidote to much violence.

It’s about to get wild, and creative things are going to happen. Much like they did when the old media censorship regimes were lifted in the Sixties. It is hard to create great art when you cannot express yourself freely.

Musk on Universities

McGill Campus

Elon Musk has recently spoken against the model of the university. He himself holds two bachelor’s degrees, but he points out the Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Larry Ellison are all dropouts.

Universities, Musk says, are geared to the average brain. Ever since the postwar years, it has been the stated ideal that everyone ought to have the opportunity to attend university. Governments promoted this idea: they were afraid of an unemployment crisis with all the soldiers returning from the war, and civil unrest as a result; for this had happened in the years after the First World War. So they passed the GI Bill—university for the masses. And the cachet of the college man was pushed relentlessly by popular culture through the 1950s.

This meant that ordinary folks without a great passion for scholarship started attending universities.

The universities could not fail more than a limited percentage of students. After all, they had paid their tuition. If most of your students fail, you go out of business. So the schools had to adjust the curriculum and the standards so that the average intellect could get through, without too much effort.

Among other things, this created teenagers starting in the 1950s. That is, a distinct culture of young people alienated from the mainstream culture. This was an inevitable result of holding them back from joining the adult world, starting a family, and assuming social responsibilities. They were all dressed up, with nowhere to go. By contrast, George Washington had a profession and was earning his living as a surveyor at age 16.

For the most intelligent, high school would already have been mind-numbingly boring: forced to do time-consuming yet meaningless dog work all day instead of reading great novels, designing software, or building a business. Now university had gone the same way, was just a continuation of high school, and they were kept in that same intellectual straightjacket for an additional four years or more.

Now that everyone was going to college, entry requirements for almost any job went up. After all, every job wanted to look like a “profession,” and therefore command higher wages.  Now you needed a four-year degree, with all the time and money that cost, to get a job as, say, a newspaper reporter or a graphic designer. Or two degrees to be a public school teacher or librarian.

This drove the very intelligent out of fields that might in the past have been their escape hatch. As a result of that, the objective quality of journalism, graphic design, teaching, and librarianship, went down.

Meantime, university tuition fees have been going up at exponential rates, especially in the US, as they spend more money on administration and less on teaching. This looks suicidal, as if they know in their hearts they are doomed, and want to soak up as much cash as they can before the gravy train ends.

The Internet and now AI should happily lance that bubble. As a practical matter, nobody needs to go to university anymore. All the information you need is on your smartphone, available when you need it. Were it not for international students, the North American colleges would already be dead. They remain relevant as a cultural experience for Asian students; now more or less a branch of the tourism industry.

I for one deeply mourn the passing of Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge, McGill, Queen’s, Yonsei, the Sorbonne, and the like. They were once places of dreams—of my own dreams. But that dream really died a long time ago.

On Going Mad

 A useful how-to, available free on our SubStack feed.

Why We Shouldn't Defund the CBC

The CBC and APTN have been revealed to be trying to entrap and embarrass conservative voices for a supposed parody show. What alarms me is not the blatant partisanship in a public broadcaster so much as the revealed systematic attempt to destroy Canada. The program sought to discredit Sir John A. Macdonald, our founder. It falsely accused Canada of genocide. Perhaps worst of all, it mocked and derided the RCMP, a longstanding national symbol.

This shows actual hatred of Canada: it was hate speech targeting Canada and Canadians. Paid for by Canadian taxpayers without their consent. Nothing could be more precisely calculated to harm Canada and its foundational mission of “peace, order and good government” than to attack the RCMP. Nothing could be more calculated to make the life of the average Canadian less peaceful, less orderly, and less pleasant. Attack the founder? That is to attack his vision, his agenda, and that is Canada.

And falsely claiming a genocide against the indigenous people is fomenting extreme ethnic hatred and division, in a highly ethnically diverse nation.

It is not enough to defund the CBC. Given this malicious indoctrination for the last couple of generations, given a sparse, geographically dispersed population not naturally in close contact, given our rapidly increasing ethnic diversity and large number of unassimilated immigrants, we actually desperately need a national broadcaster: a national broadcaster that will foster and promote national identity and unity. Something the very reverse of the CBC.

How do we get there? 

Trump does seem to be turning the culture around in the USA. A lot has to do with sending a very clear message from the top. Fire those at the top, and most lower ranks will fall in line. They will go along to get along. Most likely, that is what they are doing now: it defies belief that the average CBC employee actually believes in and endorses the toxic narrative they are obliged to present. It is probably peer pressure below a certain level.

A new cabinet, a clear direction, and a few dramatic first moves should set the tone. Some things can be done almost at once, as Trump did in the US, to clearly send a message:

1. Order of Canada for Don Cherry.

2. Order of Canada for Ezra Levant.

3. Order of Canada for Chris Barber and Tamara Lich. 

4. Put these four on a board to oversee and vet content at the CBC.

5. Open a public inquiry into Chinese interference in Canadian elections, with full transparency and broad powers.

6. Pass a blanket “notwithstanding clause” applying to all future and previous federal legislation, to signal objection to judicial overreach—as Quebec did in 1982.

7. Place a moratorium on all immigration beyond net zero for the foreseeable future, to allow time for new arrivals to assimilate into Canadian culture.

8. Amend the Emergencies Act to insert penalties for any government that employs it illegitimately. 

9. Rescind approval for the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People.

10. Repeal all “hate laws.” Reassert the Canadian right to freedom of expression, as in the US.

11. Declare DEI discrimination in hiring illegal, as it indeed is constitutionally.

12. End all government funding to special interest and political action groups.

That should help correct the course.

Do Most of Us Go to Hell?

 Find out by checking out our SubStack feed. Free to subscribe!

On the Future of Art

 

See the future now! Visit our Substack for the article! And subscribe! It's free! Explanation marks not included!

Why Isn't Canada in Revolt?

RB Bennett

Someone asks recently online why, in the face of populist electoral rebellions in the US under Trump, in the UK under Farage and now Lowe, in Italy under Meloni, in the Netherlands under Wilders, in Germany, in France, in Scandinavia, Canada seems quiescent and content with the woke status quo.

I suspect this is mostly accidental. In 2021, Canada was leading the developed world in protest with the Freedom Convoy. The brutal and illegal crushing of that protest did much to cow opposition since; but that must mean it is simmering under the surface. Two years ago, it looked as though the Conservatives under Pierre Poilievre were about to sweep into power, humiliating the woke Liberals. Poilievre had impressive rhetorical skills, like Farage or Trump, and talked a relatively hard line. It looked as though Canada was, in Canadian fashion, going to manage a relatively orderly transition to the populist right.

But then the Liberals benefitted from being able to run against the USA and Trump instead of Poilievre—forcing the electorate to rally round the flag. Carney looked like an apolitical technocrat who might be able to manage the crisis. And the Liberal government perhaps benefitted even more from the collapse of the NDP, the party theoretically to their left. A double stroke of luck for them, unlikely to be repeated. And this made the election actually in large part a rejection of the left. It is just that the electorate blamed the NDP, and saw Carney as something new.

In the prior two elections, under Justin Trudeau, 2019 and 2021, the Conservatives actually outpolled the Liberals; the appearance of support for wokeness was an anomaly of the Canadian electoral map.

Now there is a push in Alberta for separation—that is hardly quiescence.

It is true, and disturbing, that current federal polling shows the Liberals well ahead of the Conservatives. I can only account for this as a continuation of the “rally around the flag” impulse in continuing crisis. But unless the Liberals can come through soon with some solid solutions, that support is likely to evaporate. Just as it has evaporated for Keir Starmer in the UK after a landslide election win; just as it evaporated for Boris Johnson and the Tories before him. And just as it evaporated for RB Bennet after he won the 1930 election in the first throes of the Great Depression. Elected as a steady business mind to deal with the crisis, and failing to make a dent, he was crushed in 1935. And has been blamed for the suffering ever since.

I expect Carney to ultimately be such a figure. The bad news is, we in Canada are likely to go through some suffering first. Possibly Canada’s impoverishment, possibly its collap

How to Fix Democracy

The franchise is too broad.

Someone once said that democracy works only so long as people don’t realize they can just vote themselves money.

And that, sadly, seems to be where we are headed.

There is a simple solution, and it is what our ancestors did: nobody paid by government gets to vote. This would include people on welfare, pensioners, the disabled, students on government scholarships. It seems a small sacrifice in exchange for a living, and would prevent this conflict of interest. 

And it would include civil servants, public school teachers, the police, the military. Employees should not vote on their own employment terms or rate of pay—otherwise, we have a ruling class.

In the same vein, corporations or individuals receiving government subsidies or government contracts should be prohibited from making any political donations for a set term—say ten years.

If this rule were imposed, it would probably cause the Liberal and New Democratic parties to collapse; the Democrats to collapse in the US. 

Which seems to me to show they are corrupt.

The World, the Flesh, and the Devil

 

What these temptations really mean. Read it in our SubStack feed.

Lord North's Mistake

 

He lost America

Surely one of the worst policy failures in modern history was Lord North’s loss of the 13 colonies in the American War of Independence. And the solution seems so simple. They objected to taxation without representation; so give them representation, as Edmund Burke urged at the time. What’s the problem? Give them seats proportional to population at Westminster.

Had this been done, Canada and the Caribbean would presumably also still be a part of a British Federation. United, it would probably have been a force powerful enough to have prevented the two World Wars and all the suffering they produced. European or “Western” civilization would not be in the funk it is in now.

It is not too late to fix this historic error. There is still no reason for Britain, America, Canada, and Australia to be independent countries, despite their common language, common interests, and common culture. Forget worries about Trump annexing Canada; why resist? It is an outcome devoutly to be wished. 

For one thing, in case it has slipped the reader’s notice, the US economy has been thundering past those of Canada or Britain, or anyone else. This is because the US is the centre of the high-tech boom, or rather, the intensifying series of high-tech booms. We should all want to be a part of this prosperity. We non-Americans are losing out.

And these booms happen in the US largely because of its large free market, which allows for niche testing and rapid expansion of new products. It is no accident that the US’s most successful competitor is China, who has even more of this advantage: triple the population, an even bigger market in terms of raw consumers, if with less purchasing power.

And so, if we do not want to see China and its authoritarian government gain world ascendancy and become able to dictate to the rest of us, we need to expand the US market and US power. We need to expand to include Britain, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the Caribbean. 

Let’s fix Lord North’s blunder. 

The Atheists of X

 

And why Christians are largely to blame.

On the Spirit of Han

 

Why do Koreans and Irish love to be sad?

Read it and weep.

I'd Rather Have a Paper Doll to Call My Own...

 

Elon Musk says that curiosity must be built into AI to ensure that it does not turn against humans. If curious, it will value humans because they are interesting.

Curiosity also seems to be motivating for humans. We prefer cats or dogs as pets to goldfish or turtles, because they are more intelligent and therefore more interesting.

Elon Musk also says that very soon, AI will be more intelligent than humans. Much more.

If all these premises are true, doesn’t this mean that soon, men will find any lifelike AI robot girlfriend much more interesting and desirable than a human woman? Or at least, the most intelligent men will, those able to appreciate the difference. And I suppose the same for very intelligent women?

This might become an issue... so much for human reproduction.

How to Prevent AI from Destroying the World

 Read it all on our SubStack feed--and subscribe!

Isaac Azimov

Turtles All the Way Down

 

Do we live in SimCity? Visit our free Substack feed to find out.

The Shape of Things to Come

A couple of days ago I went to a candidate forum for the local mayoralty election. One male candidate, one woman. The man was quite upbeat about Saint John’s future. He pointed out that container traffic last year was 240,000 units. This year, they are expecting 1 million. Many of the new container ships cannot make it up the St. Lawrence Seaway. So Saint John is becoming the port of choice—the closest port by rail to the markets in the interior. Three years ago, there were two cranes in the harbour for unloading containers. Now there are six. He also noted that the Canadian government is pushing for more trade with Europe and the world, less overland with the US—and this is bound to increase shipping.

At the same time, there are plans to put in a huge new data centre on the west side of town, promising 1,200 jobs in the new economy.

As the meeting ended, a woman stood up and demanded the microphone. She was adamant in arguing—against the rules of the meeting-- that the data centre must not be allowed. It was going to use too much electricity. It would make our electricity rates go up. She was not mollified by the response that the data centre has promised to install its own power plant. 

Another woman I know is also alarmed about this data centre, and is convinced it will not generate the jobs it claims

Today on the bus, I told another woman of my acquaintance what I had heard about the growth of the harbour. She immediately insisted it was not true, that any new port business would go to Halifax. “It always does. It’s about the money.” Yet Saint John already handles three times the tonnage of Halifax.

I seem to see a pattern: women are negative about the future, even when the facts are suggesting optimism.

Indeed, every women I encounter these days is convinced we are in the End Times. The world is collapsing around us, the antichrist is in command, the tribulations have begun, and our only hope is the rapture and the Second Coming. Or some pagan New Age equivalent of this.

Yet I listen to a podcast featuring Elon Musk. Musk has a pretty good track record of predicting the future. They talk about human lifespan doubling within the next ten years, and this getting us to “escape velocity.” That is, within these extra years, means will likely be found to extend the lifespan further, then further, so that most of us alive today are liable to become almost immortal. There are apparently multiple teams working on reversing aging. And human trials on a lifespan-extending drug start this year.

A former classmate of mine at Queen’s is in this game. He too has been telling me this is coming.

Musk predicts that within three years robot surgeons will be as good as the best human surgeons; within four years they will be available in abundance; within five years they will be much better than any human surgeons. Meanwhile, AI will be developing new drugs and cures at an exponential rate: doing in hours what took decades.

What about a flood of immortal retirees? What about the pension system?

There will be no reason to save for retirement, Musk says, within the next ten years. By that time, there will be universal abundance, radical deflation, and everyone’s needs can be taken care of. “Universal High Income.” We will have the Marxist utopia: everyone will just work on what they find interesting. All work will be a hobby.

And forget about spending huge amounts of money on education. “In 4 or 5 years you can learn anything about anything you want for free.”

So why this extreme disconnect between what is actually happening and what most women think is happening?

I think it is indicative of the female psyche. We are in a time of dramatic change, of change more rapid than the world has ever seen.

For many men, this is exhilarating. Men are adventurers. 

But women are wired to crave security. They will fear and resist any change.

This being so, it is perhaps unwise to put women in positions of leadership. Doing so may slow the general progress.

The Withered Fig Tree

 

Time to bear fruit! See the article on SubStack

Man Hate Online

Remember, it's propaganda. It was always propaganda.

My current X stream is full of women complaining about how men are not holding up their end in relationships. Their end apparently means to provide.

And what is the woman’s side of the bargain? It seems for many it is providing sex. Letting the man have sex with them is their end of the bargain. And not even that—they have no obligation to have sex with their husband even within marriage. It still depends on whether they feel like it.

This is a lousy bargain for men. As far as we can tell, women enjoy sex about as much as men do. So why should he pay, and not she, for a mutual pleasure?

Some women will say that women deserve support because they give the man children. But it seems to the untrained eye that children are usually enjoyed more by the mother than the father. She gets more time with them. He has to be off working. You could as easily argue that children are a gift the husband gives to the wife.

You may say children are a chore. I say bollocks. No work is so meaningful or rewarding. And women are born with a strong maternal instinct that makes them desire children and their company. Men’s paternal instinct is less strong.

Some women online say that men should give them money because of the cost of cosmetics—it costs money to make themselves so beautiful for their husband or date. So they have a right to be reimbursed. 

However, making yourself up is not for any one man—it attracts the eyes of men in general. And it shows off to other women. That is more for yourself, then, not for the man across the table. A man is likely to prefer his woman wear less makeup. It suggests she is on the market. In fact, surveys show this—men would prefer women to make up less.

The one thing women never offer as their side of the marital bargain is to do the cooking, cleaning, or housework. No--that would be unreasonable. That should be split half and half, and there is much complaining about men not doing their share.

This actually puts an extra burden on men in any relationship. The problem is, men are usually content with a relaxed, rather messy environment. Women tend to be fussier about their surroundings. So the house is inevitably kept to the woman’s liking, once a woman is present, and the man is expected to do her bidding. An unequal relationship.

The other thing these cyberfeminists never suggest is splitting the bills fifty-fifty. No, men are still supposed to provide. It’s just that women have no responsibilities, only rights.

Given this common sense of privilege among women, relationships with women are no longer a viable option for men. And they hate men on top of it. 

But Who Is Your Neghbour

 Does Jesus demand we love all men equally?

That One Time Xerxes Did Not Die

 ... and why. 

The Coming Death of Canada

"Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair."

Like everyone else, I am bad at predicting the future. But I think Alberta will vote to separate from Canada this fall. Chaos will ensue.

The Canadian government, and the majority of Canadians, have been indulging in the deadly sin of pride. They have made concessions to Quebec to dampen down separatist sentiment; but consider Albertans beneath their notice. How should this make Albertans feel? They are not being taken seriously. Ottawa seems to consider Alberta a colony. Central Canada is taking advantage of Alberta’s resources, while at the same time hobbling Alberta’s economy for the benefit of the rest of the country. And they fairly openly flaunt their view that Alberta has no right to complain. Prime Minister Carney has been quoted as saying, if Alberta votes to separate, he will declare the Emergencies Act.

That sounds like a dare. Under these circumstances, it seems to me that Albertans will vote for independence purely for self-respect, quite aside from the practical benefits. Which are fairly obvious: the ability to keep the oil revenue locally, the ability to sell more oil to the US, the ability to escape the huge transfer payments to the rest of Canada—Alberta is demonstrably getting less than it pays for—and the ability to pass the legislation the people of Alberta want. They are politically significantly to the right of the rest of Canada.

It is shockingly prideful of the central government, and eastern Canadians, to assume they will not. It is as if the feds are just demanding submission.

Albertans have a strong bargaining chip. If Ottawa refuses to negotiate separation, with Trump is still in office, or with a MAGA successor, the Americans are likely to back the separatist movement, for the sake of access to Alberta’s oil. If the central government moves against them, America would have the green light to intervene, as when Russia moved against an independent Ukraine, or as if China moved against Taiwan.

And if Alberta goes, the temptation will be strong for Saskatchewan to go as well. And without big transfer payments, perhaps Quebec as well...and then the impoverished Maritimes might feel the need to petition the US for annexation.

This involves another example of Canada’s current arrogance: Canadians and the Canadian government act as though they can stand up to the USA, “elbows up,” as though the two countries are roughly equals in economic and in military power. This is tragicomic. Again, they are as much as daring the US to prove them wrong.

This arrogance is not new. Canada’s foreign policy in the last decade and more, under Justin Trudeau, has been recklessly arrogant; under Trudeau, and now under Carney, Canadian governments have lectured and picked fights with the US, India, China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. They have acted as though Canada were a world power. Carney has now actually declared his readiness to take over leadership of the free world.

Nor can I blame the government alone. Canadians elected them. Ordinary Canadians too seem supremely confident that their current prosperity and personal freedoms is simply deserved, inalienable, and cannot possibly be lost.

If there is justice on the earth and in the heavens--and there is--Canada is heading for disaster.

Why Women Can't Find Any Real Men Any More

 Read about it on our SubStack--free. And subscribe!

The Face that Launched a Thousand Divorces

Do We Now Know Trump Is the AntiChrist?

 

Find out on our SubStack, and subscribe. It's free.

Why Thomas Should Not Doubt

 Read it on our SubStack.

Why Catholics Pray Before Statues

 Read it on SubStack.

Gladu the Liberal

 

Gladu

Marilyn Gladu, previously known as a “far-right” Conservative member of parliament, has now crossed the floor to join the Liberals.

What this tells us is that politicians generally do not have principles. They only adopt the positions they think will win them power. They are all members of the same club. This floor crossing may be a watershed moment: the moment many Canadians gave up on the political system. It looks as though voting is just a con.

At the best of times, important change cannot be accomplished though politics. With few exceptions, politicians just follow the polls. The education system and academics are captive to those currently in command; change cannot come from there either.

A better future can only be done, if it can be done, either through private initiative, though business and engineering, and by changing the culture. Material progress can change the frame of reference. Songs, books, and movies can connect with people not only on a rational, but on an emotional and an imaginative level. This changes minds, which changes polls, which changes the positions of the politicians.

Trump might be an exception here—he is not a politician. Poilievre, the Conservative leader, however, although a fine rhetorician, in the end is a politician. There is talk that his leadership is now in trouble, due to floor crossing. If the Conservatives do want to replace him, they must pull in someone from outside politics to counter this growing public cynicism.

 

My Trump Derangement Syndrome

Tim Pool is scorning Megyn Kelly, MTG, and Alex Jones for recently contracting Trump derangement syndrome. The rest of us know how to tame Trump, right? Seriously, but not literally. It is all rhetoric and deal-making.

I’d scorn these turncoats too, except I think I could easily contract Trump Derangement Syndrome myself. Trump has always worried me. I did not support him for the Republican nomination in 2016 or in 2024. 

The left had and has been breaking all the rules and conventions of civil life. They have, quite literally, been denying being bound by reality itself. It became necessary to bring in someone tough enough to crack a few skulls in hopes of restoring order. Once one side in the discourse ignores the rules, the other side must as well, or be steamrolled. I remember saying to a leftist friend in 2016, that they on the left were primarily responsible for Trump. 

The danger is obvious. Once the rules are lost, and you have elected someone with a mandate to break the rules, there is nothing restraining this leader from going too far, from imposing his own will instead of the old rules. There is no predicting where he will stop. I therefore watch Trump warily.

Unfortunately, the parallel with Hitler is obvious. As in the woke postmodern West, things got out of hand in the Weimar Republic in the 1920s. It was social, economic, and moral chaos. A lot of German voters turned to Hitler because he seemed to have the strength of will to sort it all out, and some vague plan to do so. At first, like Trump, it seemed he was doing a great job. But that same strong will, unsurprisingly, turned out to know no bounds.

Trump is obviously interested in leaving a personal legacy. Harmless when it involves building a new White House East Wing, or a victory arch across the river in Arlington. Venezuela might have been reckless, but it turned out well. ICE may be acting a bit fast and loose, but something had to be done. Iran seems justified, but is a bigger gamble. I fear that Trump is just going to keep taking on bigger challenges and rolling the dice until he loses. And it may turn out to be costly for the US and the world.

We’re all between a rock and a hard place.

Turtle Island

Image from India of the world turtle

A pet peeve of mine is hearing people refer to Canada, or North America, as “Turtle Island.” This is supposed to be the traditional Indian name for it, and a nod to native people as the original owners of the land.

But this is absurd. The Indians would have had no concept of what a continent is. This is an arbitrary Greek geographical classification. They would not have known they were surrounded by seas. Nor, of course, would they have had any concept of Canada with its present boundaries.

Nor, as is often pointed out, did they have any concept of land ownership. Different bands roamed through the same territories, with no fixed address.

It is common around the world to imagine the ordered universe is borne on the back of a turtle—you see this in steles in China. The turtle with his hard shell, rising from the water, represents order, solidity, and life emerging from formless chaos. Not a geographical concept, a cosmological one.

Some native cultures may well have used this concept to explain the universe. But native cultures were diverse. There are other creation myths. For those who did, Europe and Europeans would have been just as much residents and owners of Turtle Island as the next tribe—or their own.

Dief Will Be Chief Again

I once saw Diefenbaker in person at a Grey Cup game. In high school, I wrote an essay on him. Yet like everyone around me, I thought he was a joke as Canadian prime minister. A blowhard, and a sophist as a speaker.

Yet it seems to me now that Diefenbaker was right about most things. And he would be just what Canada needs right now. In his day, like Trump, he fought against the bureaucracy, what we now call the Deep State or the blob. “Everyone is against me but the people.” In the end, the Deep State, along with the “Laurentian elite,” managed to beat him. They labelled him a “Renegade in Power,” just as they have tried to do with Trump. At the time, I bought the con. He was before his time. Had he won through then, things might be much better now. 

He spoke for the West, for just one thing. Western alienation has only gotten much worse since, for being ignored. It now threatens to end the country. 

He fought for human rights—now being critically lost in Canada. His Canadian Bill of Rights was far superior to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that superseded and largely subverted it. He led the charge for human rights internationally too. 

And he led the charge for human equality and against multiculturalism. His great final battle cry was for “One Canada” and “no hyphenated Canadians.” We went down the opposite path, and it was the wrong path.

Many, of course, are angry at him for cancelling the Avro Arrow. I think this is mostly a matter of myth. I suspect his was the right decision, that this project was a pipe dream.

Most significantly, Dief was a true leader. He did not go with the polls nor the cocktail circuit commentariat. He had principles. And, like Trump, he had the tools to lead: he was a great rhetorician. He was always entertaining to listen to. He kept things interesting.

We need his like again.

The Coming Death of Canada

 

Read it and weep. My SubStack.

Canada: The Death of a Nation

 

It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time 

Is Canada finished? I see this claim frequently now online. I want to be optimistic, but I fear that may be right. 

We cannot be complacent. Nations can go backwards. Bad government can wreck a nation. In 1979, Iran might have had limited freedoms, but it seemed to be on a path to more, and was on a par economically with Spain. It has become poorer and less free. Venezuela under Chavez managed to descend into poverty to the point of starvation despite sitting on an ocean of oil. Once-prosperous Rhodesia fell apart as Zimbabwe under Mugabe. South Africa is falling apart now, from the First World to the Third. Until the 1930s, Argentina was one of the world’s top ten economies. Cuba was prosperous before 1960.

It can happen; it does happen. It can happen to Canada. I think it is happening.

Canada has since 2015 had a disastrously bad government. And there is no sign of it ending soon. Carney is about to gain a majority in parliament, through defections and byelections, allowing him to do as he wishes for the next four years. Worse, even were a vote held today, polls show he would win a majority government. Canada’s last chance may have been the election of Spring 2025—and we blew it.

Democracy is supposed to be the check against bad government. But it does not always work, and is not working here. Hitler was democratically elected in Germany. Chavez was democratically elected in Venezuela. Peron was the people’s choice in Argentina. The average voter is not that smart; their prejudices can be appealed to. They can be gulled. And then they wake up only when it is too late, and future elections have been cancelled.

Carney’s policies continue Trudeau’s policies, and they are disastrous. Canada’s prosperity depends on trade with the US. Carney has not made a trade deal with the US. It seems that he does not want to. His policy seems to be to deliberately antagonize the US: “elbows up.” Castro’s policy. One is reminded of Johnson’s adage that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

His government, with its hostility to oil and gas, has hobbled Canada’s chief potential source of wealth. This has of course alienated Alberta and Saskatchewan, where this industry dominates. And now it seems increasingly likely that Alberta will vote to separate from Canada. If it does, Canada will have lost its cash cow, and its bargaining power in making any future trade deals. The rest of Canada will be further impoverished. Other provinces may be driven to separate.

The various Canadian governments’ and courts’ growing concept of “aboriginal rights” is also on a trajectory to destroy the economy, by throwing property rights into doubt, by preventing resource development without big payoffs to this vested interest, and by shovelling increasing amounts of money into an unproductive black hole. It is like a vampire on the national neck.

The growth of government bureaucracy in general since Trudeau took power is unsustainable. A large government is parasitical on the economy. Ibn Khaldun analyzed this clearly back in the 14th century. This is how nations and civilizations always fall.

Based purely on the value of Canada’s resources alone, every Canadian is worth about one million dollars. It is a measure of how bad and parasitic our government is that we are instead worth a fraction of that individually and facing a declining standard of living.

The Canadian Liberal governments have also pursued the suicidal twin policies of multiculturalism and mass immigration more energetically than the governments of Europe. Europe is now waking up to the fact that this was a mistake, for the sake of civil order, cultural identity, quality of life, and even economically. French or British commentators are saying it may be too late now to save themselves. If so, Canada is further down that road to doom.

The gurus of the technical world are predicting that most jobs will be obsolete within a few years. If they are right, aside from the problems of strained housing supply and medical services and the like, and aside from the disintegration of social cohesion, aside from the rising rates of crime and deterioration of quality of life as Canada goes from a high-trust to a low-trust society, aside from the harm done to a distinct Canadian culture, each new immigrant must soon become a ward of the state, a net cost to everyone already here. 

At the same time that it has been doing its best to destroy the economy, the Canadian governments have been growing more authoritarian, less respectful of human rights and the citizenry. The most disturbing example is the invocation of the Emergency Act against the Freedom Convoy, freezing the assets of citizens who expressed opposition to the government. This was done in violation of the Canadian Constitution, the relevant legislation, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But here’s the clincher—there is no mechanism to punish those in charge. Canadian governments are simply on their honour in this regard. And they lack honour. We have now the established precedent that Canadian governments can do this whenever they like.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a dead letter in any case. It is supposed to guarantee freedom of expression, for example. Yet this is ignored by the legislatures and the courts, to the extend that it has even become the conventional wisdom that Canada does not, like the US, have a constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. We do; it is just that,  like the old constitution of the Soviet Union, or that of Communist China, the Canadian charter exists only for show.

The government had introduced bill after bill imposing censorship, most recently Bill C-9, which makes citizens subject to two years in prison even for quoting in good faith a passage from the Bible to which the government objects. The media is effectively owned by the government, either formally or through massive subsidy, ensuring there is no free discussion of issues or ideas. Domestic news is otherwise effectively blocked online for those lacking a VPN—as it is in China, or in Saudi Arabia.

Never might the lack of freedom of speech; or freedom of religion; or freedom of association; or freedom of assembly; all of which are now effectively gone in Canada. The right to life, the most fundamental right, is also denied: through government-funded unrestricted abortion on demand, and through a slippery slope to encouraging and assisting suicide for the depressed, disabled, ill, or poor. This is, literally, how Hitler started; it ended in the Holocaust.

The Canadian courts, like the legislatures, ignore the Charter of Rights and instead impose their will. They systematically discriminate on the basis of race, sex, and ethnicity. This assertion is not based only on statistical evidence: they make this open and explicit in their “Gladue rules.” The government discriminates in every conceivable way, in favour of preferred groups and against the fundamental principle of human equality and equal protection under the law. There is special funding or special hiring rules for black groups, for aboriginal groups, for women, for recent immigrants, for gays, and so forth.

On top of this, and on top of alienating the US, Canadian foreign policy seems to have become a disaster. Once on good terms with almost everybody, recent Canadian governments have picked unnecessary fights. Communist China seems to have infiltrated the Canadian government. Their success is indicated by the fact that the Carney government is doing whatever it can to block investigation of the matter. They are owned. And government policies now seem to favour China’s interests over the interests of Canadians. 

At this point, I think our only hope may be invasion from the US. Perhaps once Trump is done with Iran and Cuba, Canada will be next on his list. 

It would be better than the alternative we seem to face.

Why Canada Can't Get a Trade Deal with the US

The US government has just released a new list of trade irritants preventing a new trade deal with Canada. It reveals the crucial point that the US is negotiating in the best interests of Canadians, and the Canadian government is our worst enemy.

As summarized by ChatGPT, Canada’s system of “supply management” is the prime irritant. It artificially jacks up the price of essential staples like dairy and eggs, for the benefit of a few thousand agribusinesses. Here especially Canadians should be cheering for the US government. Supply management sacrifices the interests of ordinary Canadians for corporate benefit. Trump wants to help us with affordable food.

Next in the ChatGPT list is “Canada’s Online News Act,” that “requires large platforms to pay Canadian media.” This is in practice a censorship bill, limiting Canadians’ access to news and information about Canada, again for the benefit of a few favoured businesses. This is just about the opposite of what a responsible government should be doing. Canadians should be cheering for the US government.

Third on the list is “government procurement policies favouring Canadian suppliers.” The fix is simple. Canada has in the past protested US “buy American” policies. It is only fair that this work both ways. If both countries go instead to “buy North American,” it is a net benefit to Canada: the US has the larger market. And it means cheaper government procurement, a cost savings for taxpayers. Once again, the US government is negotiating in the Canadian national interest, and the Canadian government is working against us as Canadians, for the sake of handouts to a wealthy elite.

Fourth on the list is Canadian cultural and media protections: “Canada’s support for domestic cultural industries (broadcasting, publishing, etc.)” Presumably a big chunk of that is Canadian government subsidies and direct funding to the CBC and news media. These subsidies are again against the Canadian national interest: they tend to restrict public discourse, turning news media into government propaganda outlets. 

One can argue for supporting a distinct Canadian culture, for government support to poetry, dance, the visual arts, and the like. But I doubt this is the US objection, since US governments do this too. Moreover, at present, government funding for the arts in Canada is actually doing the opposite, with systemic preference for artistic expressions that are NOT distinctly Canadian, under the banner of “multiculturalism.” Such expenditures are directly counter to the Canadian national interest. Again, patriotic Canadians who want the best for Canada must cheer for the American negotiators.

Next in line are “Laws requiring French-language labelling and branding adjustments.” One can sympathize with the desire of French-Canadians to preserve their language. However, there is no question that this is a serious barrier to enterprises wanting to sell consumer products into Canada—and not just US enterprises. Even Canadian enterprises. Everything must be specially repackaged for Canada, a relatively small market. This limits choices and boosts prices for the Canadian consumer. Is the game really worth the candle? Can’t this be left to the free market, and Francophones and sympathizers left to vote with their wallet?

Next is agricultural and food regulations. I do not think there would be any serious risk to the health of Canadians by simply entering into full compliance with US food regulations—something the members of the EU have done among themselves. It is not as though the US is some corrupt Third-World country without effective government supervision. It is not as if the US government is likely to play fast and loose with the health of their own citizens. If this is really a sticking point for Canadian negotiators, one almost has to assume they are using these regulations as a covert barrier to trade, as the Americans claim—once again to reward business cronies qt the cost of average Canadians.

Now we come to the enforcement of intellectual property rights. “Rules affecting digital content and streaming.” Here I think the Canadian system is better. The American regime gives more rights to the producer, and fewer to the consumer. However, the US side apparently cites this as a minor irritant—and mostly a matter of enforcement. Whatever... 

Next, the US cites regulatory complexity, especially with regard to resource industries. Again, the Americans are arguing for the best interests of Canadians. Simplifying and streamlining regulatory processes would be a big boost to our economy and our prosperity. Given Canada’s resource wealth, every single Canadian actually should, on paper, be a millionaire. That we are so far from this is a measure of how badly government overregulation is holding us back. 

Then there is the longstanding matter of softwood lumber. The US claims the Canadian system in effect subsidizes Canadian lumber. What then is the problem? Do we, indeed, want to subsidize lumber going to the US with our taxpayer dollars? Why not get full value? Suppose this means fewer exports. Is there no value in allowing some trees to remain standing? Do we not want to preserve more forest cover? Allow for more carbon capture? Even if we do not, no value, no money, is lost, by conserving the resource. The value of the lumber remains in the tree to be exploited later. Other than subsidizing specific businesses, why should the Canadian government have a problem here?

In sum, the real problem here is that we Canadians are suckers easily exploited by cynical politicians appealing to a juvenile anti-Americanism. Elbows up, indeed.

Avi Lewis as NDP Leader

 

The Canadian NDP has just selected Avi Lewis as their new leader. All the pundits, predictably, are calling this a big mistake. He was the furthest left of the available candidates. They say he cannot possibly expand their voting base.

This is their idee fixe, that everyone should run to the middle. This does not work in a time when people are genuinely upset with government. This does not work in a revolutionary period. Consider Ronald Reagan—he was the farthest right candidate for the Republicans in 1980. And he swept the electoral college. 

Right now, voters everywhere are demanding change. Consider the relative success recently of parties of the far left and far right. The Greens, Reform, and Restore in the UK. Trump, Sanders and Mamdani in the US. Meloni, Takaichi, Milei and the like. Granted, the surge is stronger on the far right than the far left, but both are surging. It might even be true that without appealing to the moderate middle the NDP can never win a majority, or enough support to form a government. But that was never a realistic goal for the NDP. Their reason d’etre is to be a protest party.

If the NDP moves to the middle, they simply overlap the Liberals. Why would a moderate then vote NDP, who have no history of ever winning government, over the Liberals, Canada’s “natural governing party”? If the policy proposals are more or less the same, it makes no sense.

Moreover, that is the very strategy recently pursued by Jagmeet Singh; we see the results. The NDP becomes irrelevant.

Whither Canada?

 

Morgentaler

Bill C-9 has now passed the Canadian House of Commons and is going to the Senate. It removes the religious exemption from the charge of hate. One can now be sent to prison for two years for quoting scripture, if the passage goes against current government views.

At this point, I wonder if Canada is redeemable. I wonder whether I live in Sodom and Gomorrah, or in Canaan. Indeed, I have wondered this since Henry Morgentaler was given the Order of Canada in 2008. How can I feel true patriot love for a country that formally honours someone for killing children? And actually in violation of the law of the day? How can I honour a nation that dishonours itself?

How can I honour a country that now allows unrestricted abortion? How can I tolerate allegiance to a country that will put the poor, the sick or the elderly to death? How can I revere a country that does not recognize private property, a government that freezes people’s bank accounts? This is all National Socialism only barely warmed over. This violates the terms of the social contract under which we can give allegiance to any government, as outlined in the American Declaration of Independence: government exists to protect our rights to life, liberty, and property. If a government, like the current Canadian government, instead violates our right to life, our freedom of speech, or our property rights, our duty is to overturn it.

I don’t even see, at this point, how electing a Conservative government could save Canada. 

Canada cannot become again a free country, firstly, unless all the “hate laws” are repealed, and the right to free expression as guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is at last honoured, as it is in the USA.

This much can be done. Euthanasia can be rescinded. Abortion can be criminalized. But I doubt the CPC or the electorate itself has the will. And the democratic will does not in itself equal freedom: Hitler in Germany was democratically elected.

As with Europe, Canadian culture and society is being flooded with mass immigration. It is madness, at the very time that the futurists and the high-tech mavens are advising that within a few years most human jobs will be obsolete. All new immigrants are potentially public charges.

We ought also, at that, to promote assimilation, not multiculturalism; the Canadian social fabric is fraying, not to mention access to basic services. But here we face a bigger problem: multiculturalism is actually enshrined in the constitution. Worse, the Canadian constitution is almost impossible to amend. 

We must also, urgently, end any fiction of aboriginal land title or special aboriginal rights. It doesn’t just hobble resource development, impoverishing the country: the courts have declared that aboriginal title supersedes private property. This cannot stand; nor can the basic notion of two classes of citizens with different rights. 

Unfortunately, again, aboriginal rights are enshrined in our current constitution, almost impossible to amend.

More generally, the authority given by the current constitution to the Canadian Supreme Court to reject, overturn, or demand, legislation of our elected bodies, is a violation of our democratic and our human rights. It is autocratic rule by an unelected clique. 

But this too cannot be corrected given our constitution.

Accordingly, we seem to face only three ways to save what we can of Canada as a free country. The first is revolution; but revolutions are always dangerous, and rarely turn out well. When you throw the royal sceptre in the street, there is no telling who will pick it up. The second is deconfederation: provinces could either go their own with their own new constitution, or separate in order to negotiate new terms of union. But this would require years of tumult, dislocation, and uncertainty. And the third is a takeover by a foreign power—most obviously, the US. They might impose a new constitution or governing system, as they did once for Japan. Or they might allow us to enter their union—and be given its protection for our rights.

Looking at each of the options, the one that seems surest, safest, and least painful is the last.

Just sayin’.

In Defense of Tobacco and Alcohol

 

My Chinese student had an interesting thought. With alcohol and tobacco made so expensive by government fiat in a place like Canada, what can the average Canadian do to escape their stress? It seems to him a cruel tax on the poor: those who cannot afford a vacation in Acapulco or a yacht or summer cottage or the like.

This prompts a second thought: is this in part why we have a growing crisis with fentanyl, suicide, self-harm, social discord, sudden violence, and “mental illness”? Because we have restricted access to relatively safe and less expensive opiates? 

Yes, we have marijuana expensively but extensively available. But cannabis has a different effect. Yes, we have growing access to video games. But these are not that calming; more exciting.

It is a strength of Chinese culture that they are sensitive to stress and its amelioration. I believe we in European and American culture are lousy at it. We ought to take some lessons here. Worth considering, at least.

The Solo Christian

Please check it out on SubStack. No charge--hoping you will subscribe to our stream.

Kharg Island

There is much talk of the US seizing Iran’s Kharg Island. This makes sense; it gives the Americans control of Iran’s oil exports. Were I the Americans, though, I’d want three more islands: Qeshm, Hormuz, and Larak. These are in the Straits of Hormuz. The US could establish permanent bases there, and be able to control the Straits from then on, like the British at Gibraltar or, back in the day, Singapore. No more nonsense about the British, or the Qataris, or the Emiratis, not allowing them to use their bases on their territory.

Religious Extremism Is Not the Problem

 

Find out why at our SubStack feed--and subscribe!

On Speaking in Tongues: The Real and the Bogus

 Go to SubStack, read the article, and subscribe. It's free!

New Poetry Anthology

 

Today is Nowruz, the Iranian New Year celebration. And also the publication date for a new poetry anthology of poems in support of the current Iranian uprising. One of mine is included.

I urge all and sundry to order their own copy immediately. Show your support! At the link:

Where Words Defeat Bullets – Asemana Books

The Imperative of Art

 Check it out on our SubStack feed--and subscribe. It's free.

The Chucklehead Doctrine

 

I got this YouTube video forwarded by a leftist friend of mine. This guy never discusses politics. So this might be a sign that things are close to the breaking point on the left, in terms of their frustration with the outrageous actions of Trump.

I add my responses.

“America falsified history in order to advance its proud history of pushing its weight around...”

The history of the US is mostly one of isolationism—of avoiding engagement in foreign alliances or foreign wars. This has been the backbone of American polity since Washington. The US avoided empire during the period of hectic colonizing, in contrast to the nations of Europe. It could have owned all of the Western hemisphere.

America became engaged in the wider world reluctantly with the First World War, then reluctantly with the Second, and then with the Cold War; since the British and French were prostrate, and there was nobody else left to defend democracy. 

Notably, it is remarkable that over the many decades since 1812 the US has not ever “pushed its weight around” by trying to annex Canada with all its resources. As the Canadian military admits, it could do so in about two days.

“US participation in Vietnam was ‘ignoring allies, ignoring history...’”

The US became engaged in Vietnam in defense of an ally, the Republic of Vietnam. Among allies who fought at their side: France, Australia, Philippines, South Korea, Thailand, Taiwan, New Zealand, Cambodia, Laos. They were diplomatically supported by the UK, who had just fought a similar action in Malaysia, and most other NATO countries.

“Millions dead, and they still called it peace with honour."

The US did not start the war in Vietnam, and so cannot be blamed for the body count. There is no way of knowing whether more or fewer would have died in the region without US involvement. Only fewer Americans.

Iraq - "allies begging them not to invade." 

Allies who participated militarily in the invasion: UK, Australia, Poland, Spain, Italy, South Korea, Ukraine.

Around 45–49 countries supported the coalition in some way. The worst that can be said is that it did not have official UN approval. Which the UN has only given for military action five times in its history. Hard to get that, with Russia and China having vetoes.

"UN inspectors saying ' look, there's nothing there.'"

UN inspectors did not declare Iraq free of weapons of mass destruction. They onl6 said they had not found any yet. Iraq had been refusing inspections, in violation of the ceasefire. They had finally allowed the inspectors in under threat of war.

Climate change—the rest of the world supposedly tackled the problem while the US "threw snowballs in the Senate."

US carbon emissions fell 20% from 2005 to 2023-- 30% per capita. Not as quickly as Europe, but much faster than other major emitters.

Over the same period, China’s and India’s emissions have been growing sharply.

Claim that “the American government is bringing drugs and crime into Canada.”

This is false, in that he blames the American government, who are not involved. It is true that drugs and crime are flowing both ways across that border, and it is true that there is more coming into Canada from the US than into the US from Canada. That is neither here nor there: the US government is of course more concerned with the flow south. They are cracking down on their borders, and they want Canada to do the same.

Giving Sight to the Blind

 

A few mysteries of John chapter 9.

Laughing at Jesus on the Cross

 Okay, you're gonna have to check us out on SubStack to see what that is about. I dare you!

Americans Killing Little Girls in Iran

 Much is being made of the US supposedly bombing the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls' elementary school in Iran.

Stop and think for a moment. Is there any way it would be in the American interest to bomb a school in Iran? They are hoping for the local population to rise up against the regime. It would be perfect counter-productive, sheerly in terms of self-interest.

If the US is responsible, therefore, it has to have been a tragic mistake.

This certainly might have been a missile misfire, from either side. If a misfire, however, this is intrinsically more likely from the Iranian side, since American and Israeli missiles seem to be highly accurate in finding their targets. Iranian missiles, by their own admission, frequently hit civilian targets in neutral countries by error throughout the Gulf.

It is also obviously in the interests of the Iranian government to bomb a school in Iran, if they think they can pin it on the Americans. If you were going to do this for propaganda purposes, you would choose an elementary school. You would choose a girls’ school. Maximum sympathy, maximum outrage.

Is it too much to suppose the IRGC and the mullahs would do this to their own people? 

Why, when they have been shooting them down in the streets?

Why Not the UN?

 

While empires are obviously a good idea, why is it that the EU is failing, the UN is so ineffective at stopping wars, and the League of Nations a notorious failure? Shouldn’t they be even better at preserving peace than any Empire, because more inclusive and more voluntary; and aren’t they more democratic and equitable?

The obvious answer is that these bodies have no Royal Navy nor Roman Legion nor Mounted Police. They have no enforcement arm. 

But that is not the only problem. That said, I would be uncomfortable with the UN or EU having an enforcement arm. They lack moral authority. They are not genuinely democratic, so they lack the mandate of the people. The British or the Roman Empire at least had to answer to their own citizenry; those in power could not run amok. And they lack shared governing values or principles. Without this moral constitution, they become a pork-barrelling among vested interests, inevitably to the detriment of the common man.

To one day have one world government, we will probably first need to have one world religion. Whether or not it is referred to as a religion, that is what it would be: a shared set of values, of principles of government. Confucian values held the large Chinese Empire together. Christian values did well for the Romans, and then Christendom; the Spanish Empire, the Portuguese Empire, and to a large extent the British. Lockean liberal values, as enshrined in the US Declaration of Independence, has done well early for the Brits and in more recent years for the large American confederation. But the attempt to internationalize them has come upon adamant opposition from some quarters, notably the Marxist and the Muslim worlds.

Failing this emergence of one world religion, the next best option is empire; or a confederation of co-religionists.