Of War and Remembrance

 Why I am a neo-con.

Non-Jews Are Dogs

 Don't shoot the messenger. Jesus says so.

AI: Threat or Menace

Take a Valium, guys.

Ned Ludd

Who Killed Jason Arday?

 

Spoiler alert: it was suicide.

How Religion Causes Wars

 It may not be what you think...

Alberta Should Separate

 

No consent!

Were I an Albertan, I would definitely vote for separation. If they do vote for it I will move to Alberta in hopes of getting citizenship.

The rest of Canada has this contemptible attitude: they think of Alberta as a colony, and a colony of inferiors. Meanwhile, Alberta’s oil wealth is subsidizing the rest of the country through federally mandated “transfer payments.” And at the same time, the feds are even doing what they can to hobble the Alberta energy sector, the very hand that feeds them. It is as if the prime objective is to show contempt towards Alberta. Uppity peasants.

But woe unto the rest of Canada if Alberta does pull out. We will be much worse off without its oil and the money and leverage with the US it brings. I would expect Saskatchewan and Quebec to follow—Saskatchewan because it faces the same issues, and Quebec because it stays in largely for access to Alberta money. With these three gone, it is hard to see an isolated BC or isolated Atlantic provinces staying around. BC needs its hinterland. Atlantic Canada needs its markets and someone to provide financial support. With Alberta gone, that would probably mean the US.

I keep hearing that polls only show 20-30% support for independence in Alberta, though. So probably not going to happen.

If it happens, I’m hoping that the USA will flex its muscle and intervene if the Canadian federal government threatens violence.

The quoted disgruntled Albertan is wrong on one point. He insists that there is no such thing as race, and the only issue is culture. We want to believe this is true, and we are obliged to say it is true or be called racist, but it is not  true. IQ testing shows there is a significant difference in IQ between Africans and Europeans, much less between Asians and Europeans. IQ testing is pretty reliable. 

It makes no sense to imagine skin colour is the only difference. Of course it isn’t. Africans, Europeans, and Asians have mostly developed in isolation from one another, under different environmental and social conditions. It just makes biological sense that, like Darwin’s finches, like  the different dog breeds, like the famous moths of Northern England industrial towns, they would have evolved different abilities and temperaments in order to succeed and breed. Race is not a social construct.

We deny this because of a fatal atheist misunderstanding of the doctrine that “All men are created equal.” This does not mean equal in their abilities or their appearance or their character. This means equal in their moral worth in the eyes of God.

The quoted Albertan is also wrong to complain that heretofore, integration has been considered “completely optional” by the Canadian government.  It has been actively discouraged, with government-funded “multiculturalism” actively suppressing any shared culture. Integration is “white supremacy,” after all. It is colonialism. And for whites mutual assimilation is “cultural appropriation.” “Multiculturalism” is actually enshrined in the Canadian constitution: “This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.” And the Canadian constitution is harder to amend than the US constitution—probably for all practical purposes impossible to amend.

Given this, the breakup of Canada, or revolution, or a US takeover, actually seem like the only viable ways to prevent a downward spiral into Third World status. As has happened, after all, often enough to other nations in the past.

What Exactly Is the "Synodal Way"?

 Spoiler alert: It's postmodernism.

A Continentalist Manifesto

I have recently been teaching my students W.P. Kinsella’s Shoeless Joe. The novel reads like a long love letter to American culture, ideal for foreign students hoping to enter university in the US. 

But it is written by a Canadian.

At the same time, I see a reference to The Band as the originators back in the 1970s of a new musical genre, “Americana.” Their albums are a celebration of everything American: “Up on Cripple Creek.” “The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down.”

Yet four of the five, including their two chief songwriters, are from London, Ontario.

It is not just The Band or W.P. Kinsella, either. Neil Young, from Toronto via Winnipeg, is also deep Americana. Leonard Cohen has a love affair with American country music. The most hyper-patriotic American Youtubers and political commentators seem to be Canadian refugees: Gad Saad, Steven Crowder, Mark Steyn, Gavin MacInnis, David Freiberg (“Viva Frei”), David Frum, “Clyde Do Something,” Jordan Peterson. Joe Schuster created Superman, who fights for “truth, justice, and the American way.” Schuster was Canadian.

Which leads me to the obvious conclusion: within every Canadian, there is an American screaming to get out.

Most Canadians, to be sure, define their Canadianness by not being American. But that makes the point. It is a textbook case of denial. The only thing that makes us not American is the mere assertion that we are not. By any objective measure, we are the same people, the same culture, the same nation, founded on the same principles: the same language, leaving aside French Canada; a shared geography, a shared home; a shared history; a shared legal system, the English common law; a shared form of government, liberal representative democracy and federalism; a shared patrimony in the UK; exposure to virtually all the same influences in our childhoods, Dr. Seuss and Disney, Sesame Street and Pixar; a shared religion, Christianity, with more or less the same mix of Protestant denominations and Catholicism. We play and have always played the same sports, often across our shared border: baseball, basketball, football, hockey, lacrosse. All have deep roots in both countries--sports often unfamiliar in the rest of the world. Even our standard accents, let alone our language, are indistinguishable to outsiders and usually to ourselves. It is rare to find a Canadian, if not a recent immigrant, without known relatives in the US.

For Canadians, therefore, to criticize America or American culture amounts to self-hate. It is a poison that enfeebles us. Without our Americanness, we have no culture; for we are Americans.

For those brave few who embrace our Americanness, like Kinsella or The Bend, it is visibly exciting, dizzying. You can witness the enthusiasm. It is at last meeting our true selves, discovering our heritage, spreading our wings, and breathing free.

The best thing for Canadians is probably joining the US. Even without the economic benefits—we pay a premium in higher prices and lost opportunities by keeping our independence. Even without the security benefits—with the rise of China, it is reckless not to join forces. And Canada is too vast and underpopulated to defend itself.

For political reasons, the US would not want a full union. That would skew their electoral map leftward; Republicans would never agree.

Kevin O’Leary has the solution. Keep our pretty passports. Canadians do not vote in the US, and the Americans do not vote here. So the Americans can keep their electoral balance, and we can keep our Medicare. But full freedom of movement over the border, like going state to state or province to province. No tariffs, and the right to live and work in either country. Our militaries should be fully integrated, and so should tariffs on anything coming from abroad. We should have the same currency. 

We would be richer, our quality of life would be better, and we would be happier.

 

Solving the Insoluble Problems of the Day

A problem solver

The world seems faced right now with several insoluble problems.

I do not believe in complaining about insoluble problems. So instead, I propose to offer solutions.

The first problem is fairly local: Canada is in alarming shape. While France, the UK, the US, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, and the like seem to have insurgent movements poised to take power and perhaps pull them out of their current death spiral, Canada does not. The Liberal party remains in power, after a dozen years, and worse, remains strong in the polls. Pierre Poilievre is not that distinct an alternative, and is not getting traction in any case. Although he is a brilliant rhetorician,  he does not evoke in the electorate a feeling of confidence in his competence or his ability to turn things around. 

Who else is there on the radar who might be our Trump, LePen, or Farage? Maxime Bernier is the man who has claimed that mantle, and he has good credentials, but he lacks the necessary charisma. 

The other guy who comes to mind is Kevin O’Leary. Full of charisma, likeable, and a highly successful businessman. His problem is that he does not speak French, so he is a non-starter in Quebec.

Here’s a solution: form a joint leadership of the People’s Party, Bernier and O’Leary. Who, if elected, would be joint prime ministers. 

There is Canadian precedent for this. The Green Party has had joint leaders. Quebec solidaire has had joint leaders. Canada has historically had joint premiers in Macdonald-Cartier, Baldwin-LaFontaine, and other governments of the United Provinces period.

The second insoluble problem is population. The governments of the developed world have been caught between a rock and a hard place: population collapse will make government finances unsustainable. To prevent this, governments have been opening the doors to a flood of immigrants. But this mass immigration has instead actually further taxed government services, while disrupting social harmony. And after all, can you really save Italy by replacing all the Italians and the Italian culture? What have you saved?

But just take your busy fingers off the panic button. This crisis, I think, will solve itself, if we can convince governments to stop tinkering.

Shut the doors to more immigrants. Technology will in the near future increase healthy lifespan so that people will no longer need to retire at 60 or 65. AI and robotics can replace many human hands; less population will be needed to generate the same level of wealth. The robots will pay for our retirements.

The third insoluble problem is the war in Iran. Trump needed to go in; Iran could not be allowed to get nuclear weapons. But they have turned out to be immune to Trump’s tactics. He hoped to frighten them to a deal; but they are a suicide cult, and so will not surrender no matter how bad he makes their situation. Which is, of course, the very reason they could not be allowed to get nuclear weapons. Destroying the world wouldn’t bother them.

Nor can Trump consider a land invasion. The Iranian landscape and its large population makes that too costly. 

The solution is to get weapons to the Iranian people themselves, to allow them to overthrow the regime. What is needed is a large-scale smuggling operation. 

There; problems solved.

Spiritual, But Not Religious

This is not a tenable position. See our SubStack post.

Nature and the Great God Pan

 Nature worship is idol worship. Read about it on our SubStack.

Here's looking at you.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: A True Story

Read all about it on our SubStack feed.

Yesterday--A Belated Review of the Film

 Full of spoilers, but you've already seen the movie, haven't you?

https://youtu.be/0ONU_H0EjIg?si=bHoc2FBtFEY8fAIe

Why the Excommunication of the SSPX Is Invalid

 Read it on our SubStack feed--and subscribe.

Cardinal Fernandez

Those God Does Not Love

 Find out who in our SubStack feed. And subscribe. Otherwise you may miss something.

The Folly of Excommunicating the SSPX

Read about it on our SubStack feed. And subscribe for more!

Religious Funny Business

 Heaven? It is to laugh!

Read all about this important insight at our SubStack Feed. And subscribe for free.

Going to Hell

 Get the scoop on the heresy now infecting the Catholic church at our SubStack feed. And subscribe for free!

Citizen Vigilante

I was able last night to watch “Civilian Vigilante,” the film that is causing a stir on the Internet—thanks, Elon!

I found it alarming.

The film is not anti-immigrant. Some of the malefactors in the film are immigrants; some are not. Surely we have a right to point out that there is a growing problem of immigrant crime. 

Nor is this the first vigilante movie. We have many films in which the audience is expected to cheer on a vigilante. Batman is a vigilante.

That is actually a bit of the problem: the audience is pre-conditioned to be sympathetic to a vigilante figure.

And he has a cool composure reminiscent of James Bond. We want to cheer him on.

However, there is a huge difference.

This vigilante does not just fight criminals. He also fights the government. In the film, he probably kills more figures of authority than criminals.

And not some historic or fictional government. This is not Sherwood Forest under King John. This is some unspecified government in Europe today. With references to the US and Canada included.

And the film allows the vigilante to make his case, forcefully, that our governments have betrayed us.

The protagonist, played by Armie Hammer, also plays fast and loose with morality. He doesn’t just bypass the law; he lies to his victims to suit his ends. He is shown having sex with a hooker.

It is, in the end, a call to revolution. And not just a call to revolution against the government, but also against conventional morality.

This is fundamentally a Nazi position. That is where this is going.

The film, and the stir it is causing, shows the bond of consent between government and governed is badly frayed. Where do we go from here?

Revolutions rarely end well. Anarchy is the worst possible form of government. Nazism is the next worse.

There is a heavy onus on those in charge to restore trust, before matters get much worse. 

True Believers

Ew, Canada!

I recently recorded a radio show for Canada Day, on historic patriotic poems. One participant said he would have to bow out unless we allowed him to read poems critical of Canada. Pressed, he was not prepared to say that Canada itself was a good thing; he was content to live here because there was no war.

It seems to me that we have come to a dangerous point when we cannot all agree on the essential idea of Canada. What then do we have in common? How can we function as a society?

Islam and the woke, neoMarxist left pose a grave and increasing danger to our democracies; and it is really in both cases the same problem. These two organized groups have substituted politics for religion. They have made their politics their religion, or vice versa.

Religion is at its core the assertion of supposed ultimate truth. Seeking truth is admirable; it is what we are here for. In response to these perceived truths, you bind yourself to a set of rules. They govern your actions. But the common sense of the matter, in liberal democracies, is that you do not impose these rules on others: religion must be entirely voluntary.

When politics is your religion, or your religion is political, that no longer holds. Politics is the exercise of power over others. So this means imposing your religion on others.

Can this actually ever be avoided? Since religion is definitionally the assertion of a perceived ultimate truth, mustn’t what is ultimately true automatically be the basis of all decisions, including all political decisions? Our current concept of religious liberty and the separation of church and state may be an illusion: it has been apparently possible because our true religion, over the past few centuries, has become liberal democracy rather than Christianity.

Granted that this is so, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism have found themselves capable of continuing within this liberal framework. They are at their core, perhaps for different reasons, “mystical” faiths. They do not expect to achieve a paradise in this world, and so they are generally content to leave this world to its own devices.

Political matters can therefore be discussed politely, in liberal terms. 

But Islam and woke neoMarxism, because they involve a specific political agenda, are not reconcilable with liberal principles.

This happens whenever a creed emerges that believes that heaven, a state of perfection, can be achieved by specific human political action here on earth; what might be called “millenial” movements. It then becomes a matter of ultimate importance to impose those specific political measures as soon as possible, a whatever possible cost.

Nazism is an obvious example: it believed it was creating a new species, the “superman.”

Marxism similarly believes that by following its precepts, we can achieve an Edenic state where there is no restriction on our natural desires, and we can all do whatever we want.

Islamism believes that we have an obligation to bring the entire world under the laws of Islam, which come from God himself.

Wokery, apart from Marx, is influenced by the postmodern idea that we create our own reality. Therefore the task of life is to force everyone else to accept our own reality.

I similarly fear Christian movements that focus on the “end times” and the apocalypse; at least as something dependent on any political action.

How to deal with such groups is an existential problem for a liberal democracy: for they reject the principles on which a liberal democracy functions. 

Such movements can be tolerated so long as there is no chance of them coming into power and ending liberal democracy. But I fear we are past that point, and the danger is clear and present.