Let's Put All Those Evil Guns in Jail

 

Liberal Party leader Steven Del Duca has announced a plan to ban handguns if his party takes power, to “protect the people of this province against gun violence.”

Would a handgun ban have any such effect? Most mass shootings happen in gun-free zones. Switzerland and Israel require all able-bodied men to own guns; their rate of gun violence is lower than Canada’s.

Arguably, if there were fewer guns, there would be fewer guns in the hands of criminals. Equally arguably, if there were fewer guns, the criminals would still have them, and nobody else would.

There are other reasons why a gun ban is a bad idea. 

Both the American Bill of Rights, and the English Bill of Rights, include the right to bear arms. Both say this is a basic human right. Why?

It follows from the right to self-defense. Not just against predatory wild animals, or predatory criminals, but against predatory government. The development of democracy in Britain has a lot to do with the fact that the English longbow could penetrate a suit of armour—a man’s home became his castle, because he could defend it against the nobility. Swiss democracy emerged because Swiss pikemen could do the same—hold off their armoured overlords. The continuing right to bear arms ensured and ensures this.

This being so, any attempt by any government to limit arms should be looked at with suspicion. Especially so soon after a peaceful protest was illegally suppressed in Ottawa.

There is yet another reason why gun control is a bad idea. Consider the current case of Ukraine. The government has passed out arms to every male citizen, and called on them to fight.

Consider the military advantage any country has in such a situation if its citizens generally know how to use a gun, and may have one in their basement. 

It has been said that the many guns in private hands make the USA unconquerable. It has kept Switzerland out of two world wars. Canada’s relative familiarity with rifles made Canadians the shock troops and flying aces of the Allied forces in two world wars. 

The cheapest and best way Canada could improve its own defense  would actually be to give or even require firearms training for all adult citizens, and hand out free guns.

I wager violent crime would go down too.

Deja Vu All Over Again

 

One of the biggest lies in world literature is Tolstoy’s opening line for Anna Karenina, “Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." 

This is the opposite of the truth. Dysfunctional families all follow roughly the same template. 

You can also predict with great reliability that any truly outstanding artist, in whichever art, comes from one.

Johnny Depp rings the changes for us. Some of us will find much of what he says familiar.

It also explains his troubles with Amber Heard. Once you have been victimized by a narcissistic parent, you are primed perfectly to be victimized by a narcissistic lover.

The End of Canadian Press Freedom

 

Telling It Like It Is

 

Acedia

 

Advice for Seiko

Mother

 As introduced previously, correspondent Seiko is a forty-five-year-old man who has suffered lifelong  anxiety and depression.

You describe your parents as impulsive and not thinking of the consequences of their actions. This fits with the diagnosis of narcissism. Narcissists tend to act on their immediate desires, because nothing else is so important to them, and because they believe themselves of ultimate importance, they can often expect the universe itself to conform to their desires. They are often surprised and angry when it does not. To an extent, they are delusional. 

My father inherited the family company when my grandfather died. He promptly bought a mansion in the most expensive part of Montreal, and joined an exclusive golf club. None of these were luxuries my grandfather, when he built and ran the company, would have treated himself to. He lived in a modest home on the edge of a small town.

Within six years, the company was bankrupt. My father treated it like a toy to satisfy his immediate desires. 

I once bought a model helicopter for my wife’s little brothers and nephews, on a visit to her home. Her father grabbed and ran around with it until he had broken it. The kids never had a chance to play with it.

You say that your parents seem stupid, childish, not evil. 

This is what evil looks like. 

Being evil means thinking only or at least primarily of yourself and your desires. Small children are like this, because they have not yet figured out there are other consciousnesses in the world, like them. We find it cute in a small child, because they do not know any better. Narcissists do. Narcissists act the same way, because they still reject the existence of any other consciousnesses in the universe. It is no longer cute or innocent, but it may look cute to us because it looks childlike.

Being good means seeing others as moral equals.

But surely, you will say, your parents are not as evil as, say, Hitler, or Charles Manson. After all, they haven’t murdered anybody.

In reality, they are more purely evil than Hitler. Hitler was capable of denying himself his immediate desires. This is how he was able to rise to a position in which he could kill so many people. He was brave—bravery is a form of self-denial. A more fully evil person is not capable of bravery. This is likely the only reason they are not, themselves, murderers. The evil is in the intent, not the act.

Hannah Arendt coined the phrase “the banality of evil.” There is an older saying, “the devil is a gentleman.” The most evil people will not stand out publicly as evil. Standing out as evil would require both courage and honesty; the very worst people will lack both, and will act timidly in the comfort of their own home.

But what could be more evil than tormenting a small child? A child you brought into existence?

You complain that your parents favour your younger brother. This also fits the diagnosis of narcissism. Narcissists always favour one child over another. This gives them power and makes them the centre of attention. 

They will always favour the child who is least impressive, the runt of the litter, and will reject or oppress the more impressive siblings. The more impressive child looks to them like a rival, while they can conceivably claim all credit for anything the weaker child accomplishes—supposedly entirely through their help.

If your parents consistently favour your younger brother, you can take this as confirmation that they are more impressed by you.

Have you ever read the story of Snow White, or Cinderella?

Resurrections

 

Easter Sunday reminds us that the darkest hour is often just before the dawn. 

We are in a dark time, but there are recent signs of hope.

Pierre Poilievre is drawing Trump-like crowds. 

In order to overtake Poilievre’s support with the base, Jean Charest and Patrick Brown would have to sign up a large number of new members. Brown had done this with success in the past. But it looks as though this is not going to happen. It is Poilievre who seems to be drawing people into the party. 

Why would there be great enthusiasm to support a candidate who represented positions similar to the Liberals? Why not just support the Liberals?

Poilievre’s crowds also confirm my sense that next election will be a change election. People are angry and want to throw the rascals out. Poilievre is an ideal candidate for that mood.

The Freedom Convoy woke a lot of people up. A lot of people found one another, and discovered many others were thinking as they do. Now Poilievre may be able to channel that into political change.

In the US, there is Elon Musk’s attempt at a hostile takeover of Twitter. Win or lose, at least it shows there is someone with power who wants to defend free speech. The cathedral is not monolithic.  It also exposes the power elite—they are apparently prepared to sacrifice the interests of their shareholders and the company to preserve their political power. Perhaps people will start to notice.

As the left has been demanding more radical positions, and deliberately throwing people off their bandwagon—Tulsi Gabbard, Jimmy Dore, Tim Poole, Joe Rogan, Russell Brand, Bill Maher, and on and on—they have inevitably been reducing themselves to a smaller voice among commentators. It has become safer and easier for their opponents to speak up. There has to be a tipping point, and we may be there.

Past duplicity is getting exposed: the Hunter Biden laptop, the Steele dossier and the Russian collusion deception. The supposed Whitmer kidnapping plot; January 6 suspects are getting acquitted; the false accusations against Rittenhouse; the high-profile fakery of Jussie Smollett. Sooner or later, the judgement of The Boy Who Cried Wolf must be tripped.

Current polls suggest a Republican landslide in the midterms.

We also cannot ignore the miracle in the Ukraine. We thought Russia to be vastly more powerful. One of our gravest fears is beginning to look like smoke and mirrors.

Perhaps China as well? In Shanghai, the situation looks hellish; but this may also be the spark to set off a general revolt and end the CCP’s dominance there.

COVID restrictions are coming down. The usual suspects had been telling us that, with Omicron, things were getting worse. Instead, with natural immunity growing more quickly now, we may be seeing the end of COVID as a pressing concern. The virus may now be the best vaccine.

After two or three terrible years, next year may look better.

A Coyne in the Fountain

 Sometimes Coyne still reverts to his original small-l liberalism.

is China Screwed?

 

To my mind, much of this has the ring of truth.

Happy Puthandu!

 

Spotted by Small Dead Animals: today, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau issues greetings t6o Canadians on the occasion of Passover, Puthandu, and Vaisakhi, but not Good Friday. In other news, he is off skiing in Whistler.

Justifying God's Ways to Seiko

 

Leibniz

A letter to Seiko, who, at 45, has lived his entire life with anxiety and depression, and who does not believe in God:

You may not be good at evaluating your own parents’ character. There is an English saying, “It’s a wise child who knows his own father.” It is extremely difficult to be objective about your parents. It takes a lot of quiet meditation over your childhood memories, ideally without having to deal with your parents regularly at the same time.

Although I identified my father as profoundly selfish at a fairly early age, I did not realize my mother was as well until after her death. There is usually a dominant and a submissive narcissist. The submissive narcissist is likely to present themselves as a victim.

You ask if I have ever confronted my parents. Never really my mother, since I did not recognize her narcissism until after her death. My father, yes. 

It is usually advised that you do not confront the narcissist. They will not change―all you can do is get away. I do not agree. I have heard, at least, of narcissists reforming once confronted. 

The problem, I think, is that it does not work to confront them with being a narcissist. The psychological approach is designed to allow them to deny responsibility. It is most likely to roll off them like water off a duck’s anterior. They may even happily accept the label. After all, it makes them special, and then if you criticize them for anything, you are being cruel to the disabled. They can play the victim.

I gather you have confronted your parents with something, and they have apologized and even offered compensation. This is surprising. This does not sound like narcissists. Narcissists cannot admit moral fault. But here’s what might be happening. By declaring yourself mentally ill, you usefully discredit your testimony as a witness. I suspect this is why the concept of “mental illness” exists. It allows the victim to relatively freely express himself, and the parents and society to freely ignore them. Yes, they might seem to accept your criticism, but in their own minds they they are just humouring poor crazy Seiko.

It is a survival mechanism. But it traps you.

I believe the trick to genuinely calling out the narcissist is, first, to clearly establish the moral high ground. You must confront your conscience and have no doubts that you are in the right. Then you must call them out in expressly moral terms. Do not talk psychology, but about right and wrong.

What happens then? I have testimony that some narcissists will reform. But more likely, they will die. The problem is that they have made their self the centre of their universe. Admitting their self has been wrong feels like death to them, death of the entire universe.

For both you and the narcissist, this is a matter of life and death. I am not speaking metaphorically.

As for escaping your parents financially, I know very well how hard this is, with them probably in hot pursuit, and all while suffering from extreme depression and anxiety.

In earlier days, it was easier—when monasteries were a live option. Perhaps Buddhist monasteries still are, in Japan, but Christian monasteries now expressly refuse refuge to anyone suffering from mental illness. 

And then they wonder why nobody becomes a monk or nun anymore.

As to the moral universe, you write, “when we observe the world as is, then one must admit that one can't observe justice or fairness or anything that kind of stuff.”

This is not really the issue. Whether the universe, or the people around us, are moral, has no bearing on whether we have a duty to be moral. This is the “is-ought” fallacy.

But I would also argue that the universe as a whole is moral.

Imagine you are God, and you design the universe so that only good and pleasant things ever happen. Nobody is ever tempted to do anything wrong; or those who do wrong are quickly and obviously punished, and those who do right are quickly and obviously rewarded.

This would actually be a world in which no good could exist. 

For anyone doing “right” would simply be acting out of self-interest. No morality is involved.

The world in which good is maximized is one in which good and evil are not obviously rewarded, but eventually are—behind a veil, where we cannot witness it. For example, in an afterlife.

Still, God would probably want to make sure that “the arc of the moral universe is long,” as Martin Luther King put it, “but bends toward justice.” I think this is so, shown both by logic and the evidence of history. For example, lying is effective for evil people only because and so long as enough people tell the truth that we tend to take everyone’s claims at face value. If a majority of people start lying, lying no longer becomes possible or useful. Similarly, if a majority of people start stealing, stealing things is no longer meaningful, since the thief himself would never have secure possession. And so on, for every sin. The universe seems to be structured so that good, in the end, must dominate and must win.

Why couldn’t God have just made us all passive animals, with full bellies and without tough moral choices?

Think about it. Aside from the moral good being of self-evident value, would you really want that life? For a simple comparison, what fun is it to play a game or sport, if it is always predetermined that you win and get a prize. And, if you play a sport, or a game, isn’t the enjoyment in large part because of the effort expended, and the difficulties met and overcome?

The good will win out in the end.

Always Look on the Bright Side of Life

 

Another Statue Down in Toronto

 

File this one under "no good deed goes unpunished." It further demonstrates that the true impetus behind all the recent statue toppling is simply the sin of envy. There is a sort of person who hates anyone better than themselves. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/adam-zivo-removal-of-alexander-wood-statue-from-torontos-gay-village-ignores-indigenous-history

Chloe Cooley and the Long Years of Canadian Slavery

 

This new Heritage Minute, although it does not quite lie, gives a distorted view of Canadian history.

It begins with Chloe Cooley saying, “I don’t care what the law is. I’ll never be a slave.” This obscures the fact that slavery was not legal in Upper Canada. The issue had arisen only recently, with UE Loyalists arriving from slave-holding states. Cooley was kidnapped and rowed across into the United States because the government was about to declare slavery illegal. Her owner feared losing his investment. He had "owned" her for only a few months.

The government then brought charges against Vrooman, the “owner.” The kidnapping was a public scandal.

Slavery was prohibited in Upper Canada not in 1834, as the Heritage Minute concludes, but in 1793, the same year Cooley was kidnapped. Technically, the practice lingered here and there until 1834, but only so long as the matter never came to trial. Courts would reliably declare slavery illegal.

Charest Lights Himself on Fire, Hoping to Bring Down the Conservative Party with Him?

 

After this interview, it is clear that if Jean Charest wins the Tory leadership, the party will split. He is actually falsely accusing Pierre Poilievre, Candice Bergan, and Andrew Scheer of breaking the law. They and their supporters could hardly stay in the same party with him.

What is he thinking? Is he only in the race as an agent provocateur or Fifth Column?

Freedom Convoy Vidicated

 

It was non-violent, and, I believe, perfectly legal.

The Vance Affair

 

Vance

It seems to me there is something wrong with how we are looking at the General Vance affair. It takes two to have sex. This was a longstanding consensual relationship. Why is it all his fault, and the other party, Major Brennan, a victim? There is an obvious injustice here.

The argument, no doubt, is that there was an imbalance in power. He was illegitimately trading power for sex. But why is this wrong, yet it is okay to trade sex for power, as the woman was doing? Why is one immoral, and the other admirable?

Since sex is rather easy to obtain in our present society, I doubt Vance was even doing that. More likely trading power for intimacy, for an emotional bond, for the illusion of being loved. And how much power did he actually have over his “victim” in the relationship? Given that society at present always blames the man, the woman has absolute control: if she did not get what she wanted out of the relationship, she could blackmail him at any time. As, it seems, she ultimately did. Apparently, she was recording his phone calls.

While paternity tests show that one of Brennan’s two children is Vance’s, these same tests show that a second, that she claimed was his, was not. In other words, we also discover she was not being faithful to the relationship, and was trying to get him to pay support for a child who was not his.

Apart from who is to blame, or more to blame, in this case, this is all an illustration of why it is best to avoid sex in the workplace. Traditionally, we did this by segregating the sexes. Now by integrating the sexes we have opened a hogshead of worms. Given human nature, there is now no way to avoid these exploitative relationships and special dealings. The problems of influence peddling, sex peddling, and blackmail are probably also reasons why homosexual sex was traditionally frowned on: it introduces the same problems.

Brennan

Great Indian Explorers

 

The text from which I am currently teaching has a short model passage on tr he topic of “great explorers on land, in space, and under the sea.” Neil Armstrong for space, Jacques Cousteau for sea, and, for the land—Sacajawea.

So far as we know, Sacajawea was not an explorer. She accompanied Lewis and Clark on their expedition, and sometimes acted as an interpreter. Her main value was as an indication that they were not a war party.

An ugly example of affirmative action history.

Memories of English Montreal

 

Matt Walsh on Slapgate

 

I think Matt Walsh has it exactly right.