Practical or Transcendent Morality

Relics of the Rwandan genocide.

My good buddy Cyrus rejects my contention that there are transcendent values: most famously, the Good, the True, and the Beautiful.

In conversation last night he insisted that morality could be derived entirely from the pragmatic needs of society. “Do unto others” simply ends up being in our mutual interest. So it is all empirical.

I disagree. It might be entirely to a society’s—that is, a group’s—benefit to allow or encourage murder of some distinct target group. Then the murderers, after all, might get all their stuff. This works fine so long as the designated group is relatively powerless, and distinct enough that no members of the dominant group fear the same force being turned on them in future.

Whenever some society has considered itself free from traditional moral constraints, this is exactly what has happened, and happened soon: mass murder of some vulnerable and distinct “other” group. The Jews or the disabled in Nazi Germany, the kulaks or Ukrainians in Soviet Russia, the unborn today.

Murder is the most dramatic example, but by the same principle, a society that does not accept transcendent values can equally justify any other sort of wrong against the vulnerable group: lying, theft, enslavement, and so forth.

So the practical needs of society cannot produce morality.

The Journey of the Magi

A cold coming we had of it,
Just the worst time of the year
For a journey, and such a long journey:
The ways deep and the weather sharp,
The very dead of winter.’
And the camels galled, sorefooted, refractory,
Lying down in the melting snow.
There were times we regretted
The summer palaces on slopes, the terraces,
And the silken girls bringing sherbet.
Then the camel men cursing and grumbling
and running away, and wanting their liquor and women,
And the night-fires going out, and the lack of shelters,
And the cities hostile and the towns unfriendly
And the villages dirty and charging high prices:
A hard time we had of it.
At the end we preferred to travel all night,
Sleeping in snatches,
With the voices singing in our ears, saying
That this was all folly. 

Then at dawn we came down to a temperate valley,
Wet, below the snow line, smelling of vegetation;
With a running stream and a water-mill beating the darkness,
And three trees on the low sky,
And an old white horse galloped away in the meadow.
Then we came to a tavern with vine-leaves over the lintel,
Six hands at an open door dicing for pieces of silver,
And feet kicking the empty wine-skins.
But there was no information, and so we continued
And arriving at evening, not a moment too soon
Finding the place; it was (you might say) satisfactory. 

All this was a long time ago, I remember,
And I would do it again, but set down
This set down
This: were we led all that way for
Birth or Death? There was a Birth, certainly
We had evidence and no doubt. I had seen birth and death,
But had thought they were different; this Birth was
Hard and bitter agony for us, like Death, our death.
We returned to our places, these Kingdoms,
But no longer at ease here, in the old dispensation,
With an alien people clutching their gods.
I should be glad of another death.

--T.S. Eliot

Fairy Tale of New York

For Advent:

Immigrants Dislike PC Culture

Speaking last night with a first-generation immigrant from Iran. She has nothing good to say about Canada or the West or Canadian culture. But she also strongly dislikes political correctness. She laments the pervasive climate of censorship.

Her view is that it is due to Canadians having too few real problems.

An interesting thought.

At All Times in the Mind's Eye

Now as at all times I can see in the mind's eye,
In their stiff, painted clothes, the pale unsatisfied ones
Appear and disappear in the blue depths of the sky
With all their ancient faces like rain-beaten stones,
And all their helms of silver hovering side by side,
And all their eyes still fixed, hoping to find once more,
Being by Calvary's turbulence unsatisfied,
The uncontrollable mystery on the bestial floor.

--W.B. Yeats

For My Brother Gerry

The Return of Optimism?

One never knows; but it seems to me that Boris Johnson has the seed of greatness in him.

It puts me in mind of the nineteen-eighties. Since the retirements of the last great leaders from the Second War—Churchill, DeGaulle, Tito—we seemed to be dealing only with mediocrities, and there was a general sense of decline in the West. Then Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and Pope John Paul II arose at about the same time. Each was transformational. They ended the Keynesian economic ideology, they ended the Cold War, they ended the constant disruptive strikes. More importantly, they changed the public tone: from one of “malaise,” as Jimmy Carter termed it, and the assumption of inevitable decline, to one of strength and optimism.

It looks as if we now again have two such leaders, in Trump and Johnson. Even if you hate Trump, he looks transformational. He has re-introduced a relentless optimism about America.

Johnson seems able to do the same in Britain. He has the right tone, and the right manner. His electoral win already looks transformational in electoral terms; and Brexit will be transformational again. The sense is of entering a new age.

Little Tree

little tree
little silent Christmas tree
you are so little
you are more like a flower

who found you in the green forest
and were you very sorry to come away?
see i will comfort you
because you smell so sweetly

i will kiss your cool bark
and hug you safe and tight
just as your mother would,
only don't be afraid

look the spangles
that sleep all the year in a dark box
dreaming of being taken out and allowed to shine,
the balls the chains red and gold the fluffy threads,

put up your little arms
and i'll give them all to you to hold
every finger shall have its ring
and there won't be a single place dark or unhappy

then when you're quite dressed
you'll stand in the window for everyone to see
and how they'll stare!
oh but you'll be very proud

and my little sister and i will take hands
and looking up at our beautiful tree
we'll dance and sing
"Noel Noel"

-- e.e. cummings

Happy Happy Joy Joy

Grinning Mary

My parish priest said something shocking in his sermon today: “If you do not have joy, you do not have Jesus in you.”

There is of course cause for joy in the Christian life. Things turn out well in the end. But this statement is directly against the gospel. Jesus says, instead, “blessed are those who mourn.”

The priest cited Mary as our model here: how she greeted joyfully the news of her pregnancy.

There is no trace of this in the actual gospel; only submission: “behold the handmaid of the Lord. Be it done unto me according to thy word.”

The obvious likelihood is that the news was shocking and terrifying. Being pregnant without a husband was punishable by being stoned to death. This is important for understanding Mary as a moral model. Being moral is not supposed to be the easy, carefree option.

Yeats captured the enormity of it:

The terror of all terrors that I bore
The Heavens in my womb.

Mary is revered as Mater Dolorosa—Our Lady of Sorrows.

Then the priest cited St. Paul as his authority. But Saint Paul was not so big on joy either. He said we must all, like him, “work out our salvation in fear and trembling.”

It was striking to me, on a trip to Bulgaria and Greece, to walk through museums and compare the pagan Greek art to the early Christian icons. The pagan figures generally grinned with vacant eyes; familiar to art historians as “the archaic smile.” the Christian saints always looked deeply sorrowful.

The archaic smile, shown on a sphinx

The archaic smile, shown on a dying soldier.

The core message is the need for repentance.

I fear this priest has been infected by the same “I’m OK, you’re OK” theology as the Christmas song “At This Table.”

Clapton on White Christmas

For Advent

How Can I Still Be Catholic?

The corpse of Pope Formosus, exhumed to face charges of corruption.

My left coast comrade Darius, brought up Catholic, has recently fled to the Unitarians.

The reason is clerical abuse.

“What do you think?” he asks. “Do you think it is all made up?”

No, it is certainly not all made up.

Another friend, raised Catholic, became Muslim for the same reason. He too wondered how I could stay Catholic.

All of this scandal is deeply disturbing, but it says nothing about the faith. It is not an argument to leave the church. It is pure ad hominem.

There must be some special punishment for such clerics in the next world. Dante puts them in the eighth circle of Hell.

But note that: Dante knew very well of corrupt clerics, corrupt bishops, corrupt cardinals, corrupt popes, in his day.

And the New Testament knew well. That’s who the Pharisees were. They are the gospel’s chief villains.

So this is no new thing.

Some of the worst human beings I have encountered have been Catholic priests.

Nor is it a peculiarly Catholic thing. I was educated, undergrad and grad, mostly by Protestant ministers: United Church and Baptist. I doubt that many of them believed in the existence of God.

I once explained to my friend Xerxes, prominent in the United Church, that the reason I had not become a priest was that when I was choosing a career I was not yet sure enough of my faith.

“Why would that matter?” he asked.

It is simply human nature, inevitable, that bad people will masquerade as good people. How could it not be so? If they are very bad people, they have no moral restraints compelling them to tell the truth. And pretending to be devout is an example of the general principle, that convicted liars lie 180 degrees off True North.

If my friends really imagine the situation is going to be better among the Unitarian clergy, or among Muslim imams, they are terribly naïve. And bound for a cruel awakening.

All that said, where then does one find good people? Where can one find the truly spiritual?

Jesus tells us plainly enough, and in detail:

Blessed are the poor in spirit. Blessed are those who mourn. Blessed are the meek. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness…

Christmas in the Trenches

For Advent:

It may be wrong to politicize this, but I will. Notice that it is religion that draws them together. This puts the lie to the common slander that religion causes wars. 

No, this war and the next was caused by "heathen heart that puts her trust/In reeking tube and iron shard." And it is their common Christian faith reminds the soldiers of how wrong it all is.

Another comment: it is no surprise that the finest rendition of this song is by a Canadian artist.

The First World War is in a special sense Canada's, Australia's, and New Zealand's war. 

Every little town in Canada has its cenotaph, recording the names of the dead.  It is almost the town's centrepiece. 

It was for the first war that these were erected. 

Every cenotaph, it is true, was later adapted to add the names of those who dies in the Second War, and in Korea, and now in Afghanistan.

But the number of names for the First World War is always far larger. For a much smaller population. The First World War was Canada's biggest war. 

For the UK the Second looms larger because of the Blitz. It was brought home to every family in this literal way. Not so for Canada, or Australia, or New Zealand: it was WWI that was brought home, by the loss of sons, husbands, and fathers.

For the US, of course, the First War was a minor affair compared to the Second: they showed up only in the last year, when the Central Powers were weakened. They actually lost more men in Korea.

So World War One is remembered more vividly in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand than in the two largest English-speaking countries.

Canadians commonly feel we came of age on Vimy Ridge; the Anzacs came of age at Gallipoli. It is we who bear the torch, who hold it high.

The London Riots

Yesterday there were “rowdy demonstrations” in London, protesting the Conservative election victory.

I, for one, find this deeply sinister.

Public protests are not a good thing, and should be done only with serious justification. They inevitably harm innocent parties: shopkeepers, taxpayers, passersby trying to get somewhere. They easily spiral into violence and destruction of property. They are inherently an offense against public order.

They can at times be justified. The justification is to present an important or urgent issue not otherwise acknowledged.

Given a functioning democracy, a free press, and freedom of speech, such situations should be rare.

It is possible even with a free press for all parties to hold the same position on some issue, and all major media outlets, preventing a full debate. In Canada, a current example that immediately comes to mind is abortion. Another was the Charlottetown Accord, which promised to radically change the constitution without public debate.

Immediately protesting the results of a free election obviously does not meet these criteria. It is the perfect counter-example. It seeks to shut down debate.

And it was an election in which the views protested for seemed fully represented: those opposed to Brexit had a clear choice with the Liberal Democrats. Those who wanted to move to nationalization and to the left had Labour, with an unusually radical platform. Yet, obviously from the signage, it was those who backed Labour and opposed Brexit who were protesting.

To be fair, this cannot be liad at the feet of the Labour Party or the LibDems, or their typical supporters. The signage identified instead Antifa and the Socialist Workers' Party.

They were protesting, then, against democracy. They were agitating for dictatorship. This is where the alt-left has gotten to.

Which raises an eternal problem: how much accommodation must a liberal democracy give to movements that seek to subvert liberal democracy and human rights?

Christmas Music by Joni Mitchell

Joni Mitchell's moving Christmas song. But in an unfamiliar version.

The Morning After

Boris

Two great news events yesterday: Boris Johnson’s majority win, and Andrew Scheer’s resignation.

Johnson’s win? Yet again, the polls were wrong. They saw a tightening race, and a bare majority. Not only are polls usually wrong any more, they are always wrong in the same direction: in underestimating the vote on the right. I think this is “shy Tory syndrome”: as the left-wing media try to portray ordinary conservative points of view as intolerable, people are less inclined to admit them to a stranger. Thank God for the secret ballot.

Johnson’s victory comes as a relief, but does not put me in the mood for celebration. At last, Brexit should get done, and the UK can start to deal with other issues. But it has been ridiculously difficult and prolonged. I think Churchill’s adage applies: the people can always be counted on to do the right thing—once they’ve tried every conceivable other alternative.

Johnson himself is a loose cannon, like Trump. Who knows how it will go? At least, he should be immensely entertaining, and that is worth a lot.

Andrew Scheer’s resignation, too, does not cheer me. I accept that it is best for him to go. As noted here, he never had the instincts of a leader. And his constant smile suggests mendacity—a mendacity that was beginning to show. Little scandals here and there. But I cannot see changing leaders as the solution for the Conservatives. Max is gone. I see no one in the wings who stands out.

On the model of past Canadian political experience, what the Tories need is a Trump. Canadian politics always works that way, with about a seven year lag. Justin Trudeau was Canada’s Obama, just as his father was Canada’s Kennedy.

The UK now also follows the pattern: they have found their Trump equivalent in Boris Johnson. And Ontario voted in Doug Ford on the resemblance.

But I see no potential Trumps in caucus. They need someone with a steel spine and an engaging manner, and they need someone who speaks both official languages. This is a rare combination.

Kevin O’Leary saw himself in that mirror last time, but he lacked the French. Pierre Poilievre has the spine and the French, but lacks the engaging manner. Rona Ambrose lacks the engaging manner, and her French is weak. Lisa Raitt has the engaging manner and perhaps the French, but perhaps not the spine. And she has lost her seat.

If not within the caucus, is there someone from outside who might fit? Trump, after all, came from outside. So did Brian Mulroney.

There might be some business guy out there who could do it; nobody comes to my mind.

But here’s a thought: how about Jordan Peterson?

He has in the past expressed interest in politics. He has star quality, and probably decent French. He obviously connects with people.

I am not myself a big fan of his psychology; but that is beside the point.

Flying Monkey!

I can personally vouch for this little item being a hit with kids on Christmas Day. I picked one up years ago in the Dubai airport Duty Free Shop. Hours of stupid fun.

And a hidden message for some of us. Google "lfying monkey." You may be surprised.

I Wonder

For Gerry.

How Dare They?

Time magazine has named Greta Thunberg their Person of the Year for 2019.

Here is an example of how evil people masquerade as pro-children, while doing children harm.

What do you suppose the long-term effects on Greta Thunberg are likely to be, from having been named international Person of the Year at age 16?

And for no enduring talent, just for the extreme and emotional tone of her speeches?

Where does she go from here?

How does her life from here avoid feeling to her like a fast or slow collapse?

Had they just put a gun to her head, it would have been more merciful.

To top it off, Thunberg’s claims about global warming are obviously over the top.

How is it going to look for her in twenty years, or thirty, if she lives that long, and her harsh vision has been proven wrong? If anyone remembers her, it is likely to be as a figure of ridicule.

“How dare you?”

And those promoting her now have to know this. Not even the IPCC scientists would endorse Thunberg’s alarmist claims.

And people are applauding all this as it is done to her.

Take This Simple Nazi Test

A classic narcissist lie.

In listing the signs you are dealing with a bad person, one of Jesus’s “goats,” I left out one obvious indication.

8. They will want often to shut down conversation.

This is a sure sign of a guilty conscience: someone wants to stop others talking if they know they are in the wrong.

Which brings up, in turn, the reflection that we are obviously now in the midst of an upsurge of evil. Hence the growing wave of censorship.

We are also, tellingly enough, seeing an upsurge in antisemitism, postmodern relativism, anti-religious sentiment, and ecofascism. It all suggests a lot of people with a guilty conscience, and determined not to repent.

I trace it all back to the “sexual revolution,” and more specifically to legalized abortion.

And I see a chilling parallel.

Back when Victoria died, at the turn of the 19th century, there was a similar period of libertinage, the “Edwardian Era.” This earlier sexual revolution extended into the 20s, and was especially a hallmark of Weimar Germany.

And where did that lead us?

Where did that lead Germany?

Into brazen, undisguised evil on the mass level. Nazism was a popular melding of anti-semitism, ecofascism, moral relativism, and anti-religious sentiment. And murderous on an industrial scale.

Is that where this ends?

Or are we already there?

You might have wondered, if you are an honest sort, where you really would have stood had you been alive in Nazi Germany. Would you really have been a Schindler? Or would you have been a “good German” and just gone along? Or even a Nazi?

There is an easy test.

What is your stance on abortion?

The Troubles of Children

Wise words from W.B. Yeats:

We should not make light of the troubles of children. They are worse than ours, because we can see the end of our trouble and they can never see any end.

Of his own childhood:

I know that I am very unhappy and have often said to myself, “when you grow up, never talk as grown-up people do of the happiness of childhood.” I may have already had the night of misery when, having prayed for several days that I might die, I had begun to be afraid that I was dying and prayed that I might live.

How to Spot a Goat in the Wild

Michelangelo's "Last Judgment."

The world is composed of two kinds of people: good and bad.

If you dislike this analysis, your problem is not with me. Take it up with Jesus and the New Testament. Take it up with God.

This being so, it is important to spot the bad guys. Before you find the knife in your back.

Here are a few pointers I have learned from hard experience:

1. Beware anyone who is seriously critical of anyone being “judgmental.” Obviously enough, those who are most opposed to judgment are those conscious of having done wrong—and the more important they consider the issue, the graver their sins must be.

Note too that anyone who condemns another for being “judgmental” is automatically outing themselves as a hypocrite. They are being judgmental of the one being judgmental.

2. Beware anyone highly critical of all religions (or other beliefs) other than their own.

More naturally, bad people are against all religion—it implies judgment. But there is also strategic value for them in pretending to be religious. This is so natural that “Pharisee”—religious authority—becomes almost a synonym for a bad person in the New Testament. The very worst people are liable to be rabbis, Catholic cardinals, Buddhist monks, imams, and so forth. This has been known since New Testament times, and following the news shows it is still so.

Their attitude towards the religions of others is the giveaway. Their base assumption is that, because they profess religion X, they are exempt from moral requirements. It follows that they will hold anyone not professing religion X to be bad and damned. It is the necessary corollary.

A good person will recognize and honour good people of other faiths.

This rule can also be applied to other fields. Anyone who demonizes all those who do not hold the same political beliefs as they do is acting on the same impulse. They are hiding some grave guilt. Anyone who demonizes those who do not adhere to the same psychology as they do—this too seems a growing phenomenon—is again masking some guilt.

In theory, at least, there are limits to this principle—some political ideologies, religions, and potentially psychologies can be objectively immoral. But there is something wrong if it is asserted to be all but one, or one narrow set of beliefs.

3. Beware anti-Semites.

This might sound arbitrary, but I find this most consistent of all. Hating Jews is a sure sign of a bad person.

This makes sense theologically: if God chose the Jews as a light unto the nations, turning against the Jews is rejecting God.

But putting aside theological considerations, it is objective fact that Jews left alone are consistently better educated, more successful, and wealthier than the surrounding populations. Higher IQ alone may explain it.

Accordingly, any anti-Jewish sentiment is most likely to be an expression of envy, a deadly sin.

4. Some will suggest that a love of animals is a clear sign of a good person. It is not. Like religion, it is too convenient as a cover for a bad person. Precisely because everyone thinks it is a clear sign of a good person. Hitler was a vegetarian and a big animal lover.

To the contrary, anyone who is too extravagant and aggressive about asserting their love for animals is probably a bad person. They are covering for something. Beware the aggressive vegans and the ecofascists. The best test is: are they making demands on others?

5. The same logic applies to those who make a big deal of their love for small children. All the worst dictators know enough to pose for propaganda photos surrounded by small children. The best test is whether they advocate things that, while immediately pleasing to children, are not in their long-term interests. All toys and candy, say, and no discipline. Anyone who spoils a child is revealing their own sense of guilt. And their fundamental rejection of morality.

6. Beware anyone who makes a big deal about having read Nietzsche. They are declaring themselves free of all moral constraints.

More blatantly, anyone who asserts that “there is no right or wrong” is doing so. And some these days—postmodernists—do this openly.

7. Beware anyone who seems to be always smiling and friendly. This is especially true of women; far fewer men are always smiling, and they are more readily suspected if they try. Someone who is always smiling is necessarily wearing a mask, and hiding their true feelings. Which can accordingly be assumed to be malicious.

I’m sure there are more. Suggestions welcome.

What is Mental Illness?

New podcast episode.



What is Mental Illness?

What is Mental Illness?

The Semi-Conscious State Just before Waking

My left-coast buddy Darius says he has never voted other than NDP in his life—with the possible exception of last election.

He is also probably not guilty of anti-Chinese racism. His wife is Chinese, his daughter half-Chinese.

But he complains about how Chinese Vancouver has become.

The problem is the problem I have noted: “multiculturalism. The Chinese in Vancouver, he laments, live as though they are in China, attending Chinese churches, going to Chinese dentists, and so on. They are not integrating, and show no desire to integrate. Their real home remains China.

What you have, in such a situation, is a colony. Canada is being systematically colonized.

The problem is not immigration, but multiculturalism. The expectation must be to integrate and contribute to Canadian culture.

The other thing Darius laments is that in Canada you can no longer say what you think. You are obliged to pretend you believe impossible things.

I think many lefties are walking around with eyes wide shut. Someday soon they will be woke.

An Anti-Christmas Carol

Heard this morning what purports to be a new Christmas song: “At This Table.”

Since it is claimed to be a Christmas song, and seems to refer to the Eucharist, it is troublesome that it has its theology gravely wrong. The line that jumped out at me is “At this table, there will be no judgement.” That obviously directly contradicts both the New Testament and the Apostles’ Creed, definitive of Christian teaching: “He will come again to judge the living and the dead.”

This is not Christianity, but modern pop psychology, which holds that there is nothing wrong with sinning, only with judgement.

The Devil’s counsel.

This modern amoral message is underlined by the repeated phrase in the song “come as you are.” No need for repentance, faith, or a change of heart. One does not come as you are to communion; confession, fasting, and repentance is required. There is a difference between right and wrong.

“At this table, everyone is welcome.” This sounds reassuring, but is not what the gospel teaches.

When he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees
coming to his baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers!
Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?
Produce good fruit as evidence of your repentance.”

The first Eucharist is held before a select group, the Twelve, in an upper room. It is not done in public before all. Jesus counselled deliberately concealing things from the masses: he coined the phrase “pearls before swine.”

This is a song of the antichrist.

For Advent

Jimmy Fallon as Justin Trudeau

The Prosperity Gospel

Pray and Get Rich.

To please a friend, I once attended a video showing promoting the “prosperity gospel.” It was like a corporate motivational speech.

The basic message I got is “God has chosen you for leadership.” So he’s going to grant you prosperity, presumably so you have the means to lead.

Is this a legitimate premise?

It seems to defy the Gospel of Luke, which actually seems to see the possession of significant wealth as itself sinful. Witness the story of the rich man and Lazarus: the rich man goes to Hell purely for not sharing his wealth.

And it defies the nature of God.

If giving away one’s wealth to the needy is a good deed, then anyone who has significant wealth is lacking in at least one good deed. Why then are they the leader? Why are they chosen by God above their moral betters?

The prosperity gospel therefore seems to require the Calvinist assumption of predestination: some of us are chosen before birth for salvation, and are given all good things. Nothing to do with our own merits.

I do not see how this can be reconciled with a morally good God: this is a God who plays favourites. This is as bad as we are if we discriminate against some, say, simply for the colour of their skin.

A Lutheran might counter that the distinguishing feature is faith: God rewards those who put their faith in him.

But no honest man can simply choose to believe. An honest man seeks truth. And a moral God does not reward dishonesty.

And surely, as a practical matter, all of us know people of deep religious faith, who are poor.

Actually, Jesus does not pay as well as Moses.

God does clearly choose some to lead. Moses is the perfect example; the prophets in general. The saints.

How many of the prophets were prosperous?

Moses died before reaching the promised land of milk and honey.

John the Baptist wore animal skins and ate locusts. He died in prison.

Isaiah risked starvation, had he not been fed by angels in a cave, a price on his head.

They apparently did not need personal wealth in order to lead. They experienced extreme poverty instead.

This is not a universal rule: David and Solomon achieved kingship, and there are a few crowned saints. Wealth is not proof of sinfulness. Yet both David and Solomon, good men as they began, fell into grave sin as a direct result of the temptations of wealth and secular power.

Jesus defines Christian leadership: “You know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. Whoever desires to be first among you shall be your bondservant, even as the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

This surely defies the prosperity gospel.

Material wealth, the New Testament makes clear in many passages, is always at least a distraction from the divine. “One cannot serve both God and Mammon.”

Moreover, if doing good brought obvious material rewards, there would be no morality left in doing good. The worst of us would do good out of self-interest.

Accordingly, a just God must have ordered the universe so that morality will cost us wealth, not acquire it.

This also requires the existence of some kind of happy afterlife: a just God must ultimately favour the good. Yet for the good to be good, the favour must be shown in such a way that the rewards for goodness are not visible and obvious to all.

And so the reward must come in some invisible later state.

Jesus explains it: in this present field, God sows the evil with the good. He must allow the weeds to thrive amidst the wheat. All is separated at the harvest, on the final threshing floor.

For Advent

The Mean Streets

I grow weary of the atmosphere of hate that has descended on Toronto and Canada.

Now magazine’s current issue looks back on the decade.

On Rob Ford: “blundering incompetent.” “A pretty awful person.” “Whiny, occasionally racist.”

Ford, of course, was elected mayor of Toronto. A majority of Torontonians must have basically agreed with his approach on the issues. Yet no attempt is made to argue these claims: they are just asserted. No civil dialogue is contemplated.

It then baldly asserts Jian Ghomeshi’s guilt, even though the charges against him were dismissed in court. His acquittal made sexual assault victims, Now explains, “realize that they can’t count on the courts to make their abusers accountable.”

Again, no explanation of why the court was supposedly so wrong—his guilt is merely asserted. We are all to hate Jian Ghomeshi.

Maxime Bernier and the PPC are referred to as “wacko,” again without explanation. Bernier is, of course, a former Foreign Minister, and came within a whisker of being the leader of Canada’s official opposition. No explanation; we are to hate Bernier and all those who support him.

A demonstration held to protest Motion 103 is declared, without evidence, to really be an expression of “anti-Muslim” sentiments. The “Proud Boys” are described as “anti-Muslim”; never mind that their web page prominently welcomes “All Races. All Religions.” “Never Again Canada,” is accused of holding protests “under the guise of” opposing immigration. This seems odd, since there is nothing on their web page opposing immigration. There is, on the other hand, a long statement denouncing anti-Muslim sentiments, and calling for “the concern and participation of all Canadians, regardless of ethnicity, religion, and politics.”

Their stated purpose is to combat antisemitism. Their real intent, of which the author apparent has some secret knowledge, is apparently something deeply nefarious. Perhaps they plan to poison the wells.

You can see how this stirring up of contempt for some identifiable group could lead to violence—against, for example, Jews, or members of “Never Again Canada.”

The magazine detects another sinister conspiracy on campuses: “hate has spread to university campuses under the guise of free speech.” No evidence is presented that those calling for free speech really want “hate.”

Faith Goldy is declared “dangerous” and also accused of “propagating hate.” Again, no evidence is offered. She probably is, as the paper asserts, a “white nationalist.” But so what? They have no problem with “black nationalists” like “Black Lives Matter,” who get to write their own account of the decade as part of the article. To object only to whites being nationalists is, surely, to promote hatred towards whites.

In that “Black Lives Matter” insertion, Toronto police are accused of “police brutality” against blacks, and of a “long and sordid history of discrimination and harassment.” The local schools are accused of “anti-Black racism.” Toronto in general is accused of “the violence of anti-Black racism.” The Toronto Pride movement is accused of “anti-Blackness.” Mass culture is accused of “anti-Black racism.” “White folks” are declared to be “privileged.”

Now magazine then celebrates an anticipated future “not full of plays by dead white males.”

Toronto is declared a “hotbed” of “Islamophobia.” The temporary shutdown of Soufi’s restaurant is ascribed to “racism and xenophobia”--no reference to the fact that a member of the family was seen on video berating a little old lady as a racist and blocking her from attending a candidates' meeting. Seems to me that might have had something to do with it

Incels—involuntarily celibate men—are offered no sympathy. They are accused of a “sense of entitlement.”

That might be so, but then why not the same charge against the gay community, or the trans community, who also consider themselves entitled to have sex? Yet incels are openly despised.

It is a meaner, uglier Toronto than it used to be.

The Virgin Mary Had a Baby Boy

Trump Strikes the Right Note

Hong Kong Is Not Tiananmen

I have seen exactly one media report that the protests in Hong Kong have now spread to Guangdong Province.

I have waited a few days for someone else to confirm this, but no one has.

It is probably not true. There are often sporadic protests in China; what this reporter saw or heard may only have been business as usual.

What I hear from foreigners in Guangdong is that the mainland Chinese strongly support the government against the Hong Kong protesters, whom they see as a foreign element. Despite the blood ties, and the longtime insistence on “one nation.”

This makes matters grim for Hong Kong.

Tiananmen was a serious risk to the CCP, because of the danger that their troops might refuse to fire on their own countrymen. This is how revolutions start; when the military turns. But so long as the typical mainland Chinese sees Hong Kong Chinese as other, Hong Kong can be crushed at any moment by troops sent in. Word is that this is already happening: the Hong Kong police have stealthily been replaced by People’s Army regulars wearing the same uniforms.

If the spirit of resistance in Hong Kong really were to spread into Guangdong, the consequences would be dire for the Party. Guangdong is China’s economic hub; it is crowded with migrants who have streamed in from every part of China for better prospects. If the government were to brutally suppress a rebellion there, everyone else in China would likely see their own relatives in that crowd. Moreover, if the authorities successfully crushed a rebellion in Guangdong, they would likely disperse all these migrants back to their original homes—spreading the fires of rebellion far and wide.

And, of course, Guangdong being China’s economic hub, the financial consequences of disruption there would be critical.

Which brings us back to Hong Kong.

It seems likely the only reason the Chinese government is hesitating to crush Hong Kong is the fear of the economic fallout. China’s economy is already looking vulnerable. If Hong Kong was toppled from its roost as a world banking and trading centre, and sanctions and bad PR in reaction to a brutal suppression caused other businesses to pull investments throughout China, the danger to the regime might be greater than the danger from these continuing protests.

Put these things together, and the Chinese government itself must feel itself very vulnerable. It is caught on a knife edge, and struggling to keep its balance.

For Advent

Inevitable Democratic Nominee Drops Out

Kamala Harris

So Kamala Harris is out of the race to become the Democratic US presidential candidate.

Honesty obliges me to note that I had picked her as most likely to win.

To be fair, I did also note that she was inexperienced and untested, and so might implode.

She imploded.

So now, who do I think will win?

The matter is clouded—clouded enough to have prompted some late entries to the race. Everybody seems to see the race as up for grabs.

But right now, I’d put my money on Bernie Sanders.

Granted, the media star of the moment is Pete Buttigieg. But these sudden surges to the top of the field are not to be taken too seriously. Each candidate seems to get their turn in the spotlight, and then fall back. If Buttigieg is surging now, it is probably too soon to serve him well by the time the Iowa caucuses come around. Instead, he may be killed now by raised expectations not being met.

Buttigieg is also unappealing to black voters; they may not matter much in Iowa or New Hampshire, but that will kill him in the later primaries. I don’t think this is something that can be fixed by outreach. Pete is too preppy.

And fundamentally, it is just nuts to nominate the mayor of a small Midwestern city, sans anything epoch-making in his platform. For comparison, Lloyd Henderson, former mayor of Portage-la-Prairie, a comparably-sized Canadian city, ran for the Liberal Party leadership in 1968. Anyone else remember? He received no votes.

In the end, it would be a profound embarrassment to the Party to nominate Mayor Pete. Is this really the best they can do?

His relative inexperience as a politician also makes him vulnerable, like Harris but more so, to either a fatal gaffe or some previously undiscovered closet cadaver.

Yet a reasonably strong Buttigieg candidacy tends to split Biden’s vote. If he can run first or second in Iowa and New Hampshire, it guarantees that Biden cannot take those contests.

At present, Sanders is in second place in both early states. He stands to benefit if Buttigieg falls short, and he stands to benefit even if Buttigieg takes them, then fails in later contests: he has staked his ground as the alternative, the non-Buttigieg and champion of the radical wing. Meanwhile, the moderate delegates will be split between Buttigieg and whatever candidate inherits the more moderate vote in later primaries.

Biden is still leading in the national polls. But national polls matter less than Iowa and New Hampshire. Biden is not close in Iowa and New Hampshire. Even if Buttigieg stumbles before those states vote, they like to do something surprising and transgressive. Voting for Biden does not fit that profile, since he is the nominal front-runner and the most familiar of the candidates. Voting for Biden would be boring. More probable would be a surprise surge by Yang, or Gabbard, or Steyer.

So Biden’s strategy, of necessity, is to take losses in both states, then start winning in South Carolina and the South.

That strategy has never worked before. The negative media resulting from the two losses, plus the buzz around the winner, tends to kill all momentum. Biden’s strategy is Rudy Giuliani’s strategy in 2008. Giuliani led the national polls too. And Biden is actually running not second, but third, in both states. He is not even establishing himself as the natural alternative.

For a while, the centre lane in the race was uncrowded, while candidates were all shuffling left. In particular, Elizabeth Warren’s strong candidacy was splitting Sanders’s natural constituency. That made Biden look strong. Now that situation seems reversed. Warren has fallen dramatically in the polls. Having had two campaign revivals, I do not think she is likely to rise again. Her insincerity has finally sunken in with Democratic voters. Sincerity is more important than it used to be. Perceived lack of sincerity sunk Kamala Harris, and it looks like it is sinking Warren now almost as decisively.

In the meantime, new candidates have been poaching Biden’s following. Buttigieg has moved to sound more moderate; Steyer, Bloomberg, and Patrick have entered the space. Steyer and Bloomberg seem to be posting significant numbers. Those are numbers largely bled from Biden.

So Sanders and Buttigieg come out of Iowa and New Hampshire as the two leading candidates. Most likely with Sanders on top, Buttigieg underperforming based on prior expectations. Then Buttigieg fails in later primaries, because he cannot appeal to the black vote; and because he is no longer so fresh. Moderate vote splits between Biden and Bloomberg and Buttigieg, at a minimum. Bloomberg can stay in the race as long as he wants, being self-financing. Quite likely Steyer as well. But the radical vote quickly coalesces around Bernie.

I think a sudden surge by some dark horse, a stealth win or near-win in Iowa, may yet overturn the race. But that is more or less unpredictable. Based on what is predictable, I see Sanders as the most likely nominee.

For Advent

Forwarded Gag

From a friend, author unknown. As a vegetarian, I must add that I am offended. Not sure how, but I am offended.

It snowed last night...

8:00 am: I made a snowman.

8:10 - A feminist passed by and     asked me why I didn't make a   snow woman.

8:15 - So, I made a snow woman.

8:17 - My feminist neighbor   complained about the snow   woman's voluptuous chest   saying it objectified snow   women  everywhere.

8:20 - The gay couple living nearby threw a hissy fit and moaned it could have been two snow men instead.

8:22 - The transgender man..women...person asked why I didn't just make one snow person with detachable parts.

8:25 - The vegans at the end of the lane complained about the carrot nose, as veggies are food and not to decorate snow figures with.

8:28 - I was being called a racist because the snow couple is white.

8:31 - The middle eastern gent across the road demanded the snow woman be covered up .

8:40 - The Police arrived saying someone had been offended.

8:42 - The feminist neighbor complained again that the broomstick of the snow woman needed to be removed because it depicted women in a domestic role.

8:43 - The council equality officer arrived and threatened me with eviction.

8:45 - TV news crew from CBC showed up. I was asked if I know the difference between snowmen and snow-women? I replied "Snowballs" and am now called a sexist.

9:00 - I was on the News as a suspected terrorist, racist, homophobe sensibility offender, bent on stirring up trouble during difficult weather.

9:10 - I was asked if I have any accomplices. My children were taken by social services.

9:29 - Far left protesters offended by everything marched down the street demanding for me to be arrested.

By noon it all melted

Moral:
There is no moral to this story. It is what we have become, all because of snowflakes.

White Christmas

It's Advent. Time to start the Christmas music.

Female Physician

Went to my doctor today. She works out of a local clinic. Outside the clinic is, as always, a big sandwich board announcing “FEMALE PHYSICIAN WITHIN.” It was there before she joined the clinic. It is even visible in Google Maps. When the previous doctor left, they apparently made a point of finding another woman. It seems to be a part of their business model.

This brings up several issues. To begin with, this signboard should be illegal under anti-discrimination legislation. How would it be if the sign read, instead, “MALE PHYSICIAN,” or “WHITE PHYSICIAN”?

Secondly, the clinic and the doctor obviously put out the sign because they think “female” is a selling point. This pretty much proves that there is no systemic discrimination against women in our society; the discrimination is against men.

Putting these two together illustrates that anti-discrimination laws never help those who are really discriminated against. Should they protect any genuinely systemically oppressed group, they are not enforced. They are only enforced when they work in favour of some already favoured group. Accordingly, they only serve to increase the general level of discrimination.

You cannot fight discrimination through the law.

Trump Derangement Syndrome

An ad hoc organization of psychiatrists and psychologists has apparently been formed to call for Donald Trump to be impeached on psychiatric grounds.

They claim that their examination of transcripts from the Mueller report “showed that the president lacked the ability to make rational decisions."

He has shown that his sense of worth is entirely dependent on the admiration from others, such as at the rallies of Trump’s base. Without this external affirmation, Trump has revealed that he feels, deep down, like a loser, a failure, weak, dumb, fat, ugly, fake, “crooked”. We know this because this self-denigrating pictures of himself, Trump projects onto others, whom he transforms into enemies, and compensates consciously by creating a grandiose image of himself as unique, a stable genius, entitled to special treatment, and better at everything than everyone else. 

What makes Trump so dangerous is the brittleness of his sense of worth. Any slight or criticism is experienced as a humiliation and degradation. To cope with the resultant hollow and empty feeling, he reacts with what is referred to as narcissistic rage. He is unable to take responsibility for any error, mistake or failing. His default in that situation is to blame others and to attack the perceived source of his humiliation. These attacks of narcissistic rage can be brutal and destructive. A striking but not unusual example of his lack of caring and empathy is his policy of separating children from their parents at the Southern border. Additionally, he has made the reckless decision to allow an attack of our Kurdish allies, against all advice, shortly after announcement of the impeachment inquiry. These events are closely related and betray his extreme inability to tolerate any challenges against him.

This initiative is instructive in two ways. First, it shows how irresponsible and politicized our professional elites have become. And second, it shows how dangerous psychiatry can easily be to democracy and human rights.

Any competent psychiatrist must be aware that psychiatric diagnoses are pretty arbitrary and unreliable. If you must make a decision, you must, if somebody seems about to commit suicide or the like, but it is dishonest to claim you are authoritative. A recent study showed that half of a random selection of patients formerly diagnosed as schizophrenic were not, but instead suffered from anxiety. We actually have no way of knowing whether it was the first or the second of these diagnoses that was wrong, but either way, 50% were wrong. This is significant because these two diagnoses call for radically different treatments, and both the treatments used have dangerous side effects.

Imagine now applying such standards to making critical decisions of national importance, like impeaching a president.

And it is not just that psychiatrists often get the diagnoses wrong. We also do not know what the diagnoses mean. Psychiatric diagnoses are just lists of symptoms in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Lists change with each edition. Whether there is any one underlying psychiatric “condition” conforming to any one list is pure speculation. If so, whether that condition is an “illness” is also demonstrably dubious. Homosexuality used to be in there. Obviously, any sort of political dissent or non-conformity could be in there—and probably has been. Republicanism, for example, could simply be declared a mental illness.

And there is more. The basic standard on which modern psychiatry and psychology is based is “normalcy.” Any deviation from the “normal,” which is to say the average, is classed as “illness.”

Now it is self-evident that anyone who rises to become president of the US is not mentally normal. Anyone who does an unusually good job at anything is by this fact demonstrably abnormal. Accordingly, “psychohistorians” have been able, by applying the same techniques used here on Trump, to demonstrate that Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill, for example, or Moses, or Muhammed, or Plato, or Michelangelo, or just about any prominent historical figure, were mentally ill. Of course they were; it goes with our definition.

Our leaders are therefore always going to be mentally ill, by present definition, and the charge of “mental illness” can therefore always be used against any political leader, or any person of prominence, that you do not like. Any intervention in politics by psychiatrists or psychologists is therefore harmful to the general welfare. If they do not know this, they are dangerously incompetent. If they do know this, they are dangerously corrupt.

Of course, a prominent leader can indeed go genuinely mad in the proper sense, of being delusional, hallucinating, of seeing things that are not there. If so, this is going to be readily apparent to those around him or her. Nobody needs a psychiatrist to know as much. And every system of government makes provision for this.

But the diagnosis given in the present case is not even superficially plausible. For example, this cabal writes that Trump’s “sense of worth is entirely dependent on the admiration from others.” That is true of politicians generally—always seeking to please the crowds. It is exactly how Trump differs from other politicians. He will confront and disagree with people directly, in public. He seems constitutionally not to need the approval of others to form and keep to his own opinions.

They write:

Trump has revealed that he feels, deep down, like a loser, a failure, weak, dumb, fat, ugly, fake, "crooked". We know this because this self-denigrating pictures of himself, Trump projects onto others.

This is schoolyard stuff: it is that old taunt “I know you are, but what am I?” Projection is a real thing—Jesus warns of it in the New Testament—but in order to level the charge, you must have evidence; otherwise it is you who are projecting. You must show that the people Trump calls losers, failures, weak, dumb, fat, ugly, fake, or crooked are not; and then that Trump is.

The fact that his taunts seem to resonate with the public is already evidence that Trump is not projecting. Yes, Pete Buttigieg really does look like Alfred E. Neuman. Yes, Marco Rubio really is short. If he were projecting, these cruel little japes would not be effective.

What? Me President?

You really would want a psychiatrist to understand how projection works.

They then claim that Trump cannot bear any humiliation, and reacts with “narcissistic rage.” Yet, as above, he actually seems impervious to being humiliated; nothing shames him. Narcissistic rage? If Trump ever loses his temper, it has never been caught on camera. His sharp responses are always delivered calmly and in a matter-of-fact way; as though he were speaking for everyone. He is also notably quick to reconcile, never holding grudges. Witness his treatment of Ted Cruz, or Kim Jong Un, or China’s president Xi. This seems to suggest that his sharp responses are purely a negotiating tactic, calculated, and not expressions of emotion at all. Rather than being emotionally out of control, as the psychiatrists and psychologists suggest, Trump seems to have a remarkable control over his own emotions.

Perhaps this itself should be disturbing; but it is the opposite of what disturbs them.

They are also ignorant, it seems, of current events. They write: “A striking but not unusual example of his lack of caring and empathy is his policy of separating children from their parents at the Southern border.”

They are apparently unaware that this policy was also followed by previous administrations. It is required by present legislation: you cannot legally confine a child because their parent did something wrong. Trump’s emotions do not enter into it.

Now consider this: we put such people in charge of deciding whether any of us is sane or capable of arranging our own affairs. In charge of deciding on and perhaps revoking our right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The likelihood of frequent abuse, on this evidence, is overwhelming.

No wonder, then, that public trust in the professional elites is on the decline.

Cultural Appropriation - podcast episode

Cultural Appropriation

Cultural Appropriation

Regime-Change Wars

A 19th Century British political cartoon.

I like the sincerity of Tulsi Gabbard. I believe she would be the strongest candidate for the Democrats against Donald Trump. And I think she is being treated dishonestly by a corrupt Democratic Party establishment and media. 

But what about the merits of her central issue, ending American involvement in “regime-change wars”?

She has a point in international law, or what international law said until Kosovo. Until then, intervening in another country’s internal politics, no matter what, was considered unprovoked aggression.

But then there was the Rwandan holocaust, and opinion shifted to holding France morally responsible for not intervening.

I at first resisted this new principle, that there was an obligation upon other nations to intervene in defense of human rights. I was, on reflection, wrong.

This, after all, is the same moral principle as our obligation to intervene if we see someone being raped or stabbed or beaten up. “None so guilty as the innocent bystander.”

So it follows that America, because it has the capability, has the moral obligation to intervene against any regime that is flagrantly violating the human rights of either its own or some other people. It is not okay to gas Jews. It is not okay to stand aside and let it happen. Sorry, Tulsi.

I believe Gabbard sincerely sees it differently, for the simple reason that she is a Hindu.

Hinduism or Buddhism can endlessly tolerate injustice without a moral obligation to intervene because of the doctrine of karma. If someone is being raped or stabbed or otherwise viciously mistreated, if some group is being systematically wiped doubt, it is no doubt just reward for some terrible thing they have done in a past life. No injustice is possible; no cause for us to get involved.

I leave the reader to decide how they feel about this stance; but from it follows the conclusion, for example, that having a criminal justice system is illegitimate.

Gabbard and her supporters would no doubt go on to argue that recent “regime change” wars have not just been costly, but have not worked. They will cite Iraq and Afghanistan.

We have actually had several recent case studies, since this new doctrine has become accepted: Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria.

In the first case, the Western allies stayed on to establish stability, and, after some years, Kosovo has emerged as a functioning multi-party democracy. In Kosovo, it seems that the “regime change” war did work. One might also mention the postwar experience with Germany, Japan, or Italy, although WWII was not just a “regime change” war.

In the second case, Iraq, some stability did seem to have been achieved, after some years of struggle, then lost by what looks like a premature US departure. After some limited re-engagement, Iraq looks more stable. In Afghanistan, relatively low-level conflict continues. In these two cases, long-term results cannot really be determined.

Appalled by the cost of these two interventions, however, when things then turned nasty internally in Libya, the West tried a different tack: go in, take out the regime, and leave. This is, to be honest, what I too thought would be the better policy. You can lead a nation to democracy, but you cannot force them to be democrats. It’s a contradiction in terms.

But this approach seems to have turned out worse: Libya remains in chaos, and human rights abuses remain common.

Disappointed again, when Syria then went south, the West reverted to the old, pre-Rwanda approach: do nothing.

And this has worked out worst of all: an ongoing holocaust of historic proportions, a refugee crisis flooding the borders of Europe, and the intervention of other foreign powers less friendly to human rights: Russia, Iran. As none have the strength to force a resolution, conflict looks to continue indefinitely.

So we’ve tried all the possible approaches, and in terms of defending human rights, the option of intervention, however costly, is visibly the best.

Americans, of course, are historically tempted to ignore the rest of the world’s problems, protected they are by oceans vast and deep. That may or may not be wise—but it is not the moral way.

Those alert to history may realize that Britain, in the nineteenth century, faced the same choice. Protecting the human rights of foreigners was actually the sentiment upon which was built much of the British Empire. Britain spent a lot of "blood and treasure," as the modern clichéd usage goes, ending the slave trade, thuggery, piracy, suttee, the caste system, banditry, endless local conflicts, and the like.

Honesty compels us to admit that, no so uncommonly, colonialism is actually a good idea.