Cantandum in Ezkaton 01/27/19

nick_sandmann_jan._18__2019_810_500_75_s_c1

In Progressiveland, this offence warrants capital punishment.

I was trying to be objective. I hoped that with the Progressives there was some reasonable or noble goal driving them forward. Maybe there was in the distant past, but that’s over. They’ve been riding a wave of being able to do whatever they want, telling everyone how they should live their lives, playing to our sympathies, and failing that, outright lying.

Don’t like their views on women, abortion, divorce, or marriage? Misogynist! Don’t like their views on men and masculinity? Toxic Masculinity! Don’t like their views on the environment or ClimateChangeTMScience denier! Conspiritard! Don’t like their views on affirmative action and the like? Racist! Don’t like the education system? Child hater! Don’t like non-porous borders? Xenophobe! Bigot! Don’t like minimum wage laws?  Capitalist stooge! Greed monger!

Progressives have done this for as long as I can remember; let’s say 50 years. I have three big gripes about this.

First, Progressive ideas have largely failed. Maybe there has been some progress, but it’s been minimal and probably a fluke. Progressives impose simple top-down solutions to ‘problems’ (often, not a problem at all, and usually without consulting the alleged victims of the problem). Often, it is an attempt to fix things in society or culture which actually require change from the bottom-up. Failure results most of the time, and often, things get worse. But, instead of admitting failure, they double-down on their solutions and use shame to silence dissenting voices. I think they do not want to admit they are wrong, or that the ongoing misery of those they wanted to help is actually, in part, their fault.

Second, they do not have a monopoly on their adopted issues: and other viewpoints might just be better than theirs. But, they are so used to silencing everyone else that today they are offended when you hint you engage in Wrongthink, such as a facial gesture like a smirk.

Third, Progressive attitudes are thinly veiled intolerance, contempt and disdain towards the groups they claim to want to help, and outright hostility to those they see as the route of the ‘problem’ (since they will not look at their own faults). Likely, it is simply about obtaining power: see Spandrell on BioLeninism. Last week was the boiling point, and I sense a sea change, due to the following…

Bang the Drum Slowly

So some Christian high school youths, a group of Black Hebrew Israelites, and some Native American activists went to the Lincoln Memorial. The punchline isn’t all that funny, but comes with a blowjob. It seems to me that people got in each other’s space: the American Indians chanted and banged their drums, the high school kids sang their school songs, and the BHI made some nasty comments. What breaks out in the internet and the media is lunacy.  A good recap of the event was provided by Sargon of Akkad.

The particular Progressive problem was the video of Nick Sandmann and Nathan Phillips (with the drum). Initially, the narrative was the youths had surrounded Mr. Phillips (not what actually happened) and…[trigger warning]…Nick had a smirk on his face!

Progressives lost their shit over a smirk. That’s right…a smirk. I don’t buy that the kid was smirking. He was probably wondering what the hell Mr. Phillips was doing, and what danger he was in. I don’t see any indication from the videos Nick had ANY ill intent at all. (Progressives, however, treat being white itself as ill intent, and call you racist when you disagree.) I don’t think Mr. Phillips is being honest when he says he was trying to defuse the situation: you don’t go drumming right up in someone’s face to calm them down. It probably could have passed without further incident, but Progressives just could not help themselves when a juicy chance to correct thought-criminals was served up. Ezra Levant’s Rebel Media has a good analysis here.

In particular, my grievances are against Progressives, whose members called for the doxing, assault, and murder of the high school kids, based on a ‘smirk’. This, after chiding men for reacting unfavourably to an advertisement which labelled all of them as inherently ‘toxic’. (Showing Toxic Progressivism is the disease we need to worry about. ‘Toxic Masculinity’ is all projection.) After this fine exhibition of dog-whistle outrage by Progressives, I’m assuming everything they accuse someone of is merely projection on their part.

But my greatest ire is for the high school: they threw their kids under the bus with little hesitation. That’s unacceptable. If discipline is necessary, then fine, but one must find out what actually happened first. (They have since recanted. I want to know if they returned the twenty silver pieces they got.)

Nassim Nicholas Taleb once said (I think in The Bed of Procrustes) that the argument “Think of the children!” is a hard argument to fight against, but it is also the last refuge of scoundrels. How stupid one would have to be to:

  • hand this argument to your enemies;
  • through media which are readily tracked, recorded, and duplicated;
  • placing your enemy on the high ground; and
  • leaving YOU looking like the scoundrel.

I did not think Progressives could push their agenda so far as to make The View and Ezra Levant agree…on anything. Yet they do. Congrats, Progressives, you are that fucking stupid.

Anti-Gnostic reminds us this insanity has been going on for some time now. (Here is an explanation of the picture.) Jim takes note. As does PA Blog, here and also here. Evolutionist X notes the moral failings.

Rant Over…the Rest

The NYT takes a mild one on the chin (from David Reich).

The Orthosphere discusses what you could do to live your best life, and spoiler alert: it’s not your career. Who profits from sexual vices? Also, morality must be for victims.

Spandrell discusses Tucker Carlson’s war against woke capital and the right’s future. A follow-up at Motus Mentis. Also, Malcolm’s thoughts on the ongoing Russian election interference investigation. Also: Eew!

Something for my fellow Canucks: Evolutionist X on the Hamatsa Society and the Potlatch.

jesusmary

Mr. Briggs has had a series of posts: Summary Against Modern Thought. It’s his translation of St Thomas’s Summa Contra Gentiles, and roughly works out to one post per chapter. I’ve read a few and they deal with Christian theology. I was struck by Mr. Brigg’s latest, which deals with the ultimate felicity and man’s purpose as quest for the truth. I have been searching for harmony and flourishing in life. No matter where I looked (Buddha, Confucius, Plato, Marcus Aurelius, Jordan Peterson, No More Mr. Nice Guy), the same thing kept coming up: to live a life, always seek and speak the truth. Mr. Briggs drives this simple idea home through his Christian faith. His post provides the example of Jesus Christ, whose sufferings teach us how to find courage to speak truth in the face of destruction, resting assured that your sacrifice is necessary, so that the world, with you in it, can be redeemed and renewed.

Also: Conservatives Conserve Nothing; A particularly ‘WTF?’ version of The Week in Doom; ‘Equality’ is false; and the sudden push against meat.

Antony Karlin discusses why Eastern Europe may not be a place to escape the poz. Matt Forney’s helpful comments.

Alf’s book is now for sale! Also, relief from information overload.

The American Sun was busy this week. A dissection of the recent defenestration of James Watson. A ‘how-to’ for the minimalist reactionary. Thoughts on Progressive control of ‘masculinity’ and the real reason for the APA ‘Toxic Masculinity’ guidelines. Good work on how maintaining an identity is necessary for participation in politics and morality. Capping it off: Five Friday Reads.

Finally, in Canada this week, Ottawa’s (now former) Ambassador to China, John McCallum, gave a press conference to Chinese media in Canada about the arrest and potential deportation of Huawei Executive Meng Wanzhou. She was arrested last December at the behest of the US in Vancouver, on her way to Argentina. She awaits deportation (while on bail) to the US for allegedly violating sanctions against Iran. During the conference, McCallum suggested several ways for Meng to argue against the extradition. McCallum gave the impression he was pro-China, which is fine for the Prime Minister, but not some underling. Later, McCallum stated he wished the US would just drop its extradition request. Understandable, as China appears ready to execute one Canadian and is holding on to two more, ostensibly in response to Meng’s arrest. Justin Trudeau finally asked for and received McCallum’s resignation yesterday. Conspiracy theories abound. Rex Murphy, with his usual vigour, is not convinced McCallum was just a loose cannon. Antony Karlin provides a Chinese perspective.

Cheers!

Señor Blanco

Cantandum in Ezkaton 01/20/19

donald-trump-looking-smug

My mother once told me: “Son, you lack tact. You need to learn how to tell someone “go fuck yourself” without actually saying “go fuck yourself.” Malcolm provides the best lesson yet, via President Trump.

On to what I spied with my reactionary eye this week…

Problems (Part I and Part II) with recent Climate ChangeTM ocean warming alarms, from Dr. Spencer.

Evolutionist X continues her series on male and female psychopathy, relating to relationships and resources: Part II and Part III. It reminded me in a small way of a poem by Kipling, reproduced at the end.

Reflections on China’s Stalinist legacy, from the Scholar’s Stage.

The Orthosphere on censorship, including the good kind. As well, Taine on frustrated quasi-intellectuals coming (to power) too soon. Long but worthwhile and inspiring works by Thomas Bertonneau on the meaning of Christian politics: Part I and Part II.

Good news at AlfaNL, from Miss Alf. Congratulations to Alf and Mia!

Alf’s thoughts on AOC. Also, and then they came for the capitalists.

USSR Underground poetry circa 1930s, from Antony Karlin. Just in under the wire, 50 ‘oopsy’ corrected or just deleted stories on Russia. Also, Generation Zyklon will not save us.

640px-maccari-cicero

The Neo-Ciceronian Times with an enlightening explanation on how aristocracy preserves freedom.

Lots of goodies from American Sun this week. A review of the works of Christopher Lausch, on narcissism in America. The opening quote alone is worth the visit. Jordan Jacob opines on the New Right, and the need for family values as a way for stable homes and happy families. Also, Five Friday Reads from Mr. Landry, including this article on Z/Acc or Zero Accelerationism. I’m not so sure I got it after one time through, but some excellent thoughts on societal collapse, stagnation, and the romantic need for Armageddon.

Guillaume Durocher on why some countries do better than others, why the others don’t catch up, and how the Marshall Plan may not have saved Europe after all.

Palladium on the rise of Kazakhstan.

If you need a chuckle.

Mr. Briggs on masculinity as an APA diagnosis, and why it’s not just about shaving. Also, on God In Science, on statistics – no way to determine cause, and (in a blast from the past) on the mind as the cause of causation:

The universe is no narrow thing and the order within it is not constrained by any latitude in its conception to repeat what exists in one part in any other part. Even in this world more things exist without our knowledge than with it and the order in creation which you see is that which you have put there, like a string in a maze, so that you shall not lose your way. For existence has its own order and that no man’s mind can compass, that mind itself being but a fact among others.1

Lastly, the curious case of Father Anthony Van Hee. He is a Jesuit priest who spent thirty years on Parliament Hill in a personal pro-life vigil. He was arrested last fall under Ontario’s Safe Access to Abortion Services Act, which makes it illegal to protest anywhere within 150 metres of an abortion clinic. His act of protest was to stand across the street from an Ottawa clinic and wear the placard in the image below. He spoke to, harassed or blocked no one. Alberta has its own version of the law here.

father-tony-vanhee

Of note in contrast is Jordan Hunt: if you are pro-abortion, you don’t get arrested until you actually assault someone.

A lawyer from Alberta has agreed to take on Father Van Hee’s case and argue the law should be struck down, on grounds it violates freedom of speech. I shudder at how the Supremes might handle this . They’ve said it is reasonable to say students from a proposed private law school are incompetent to practice law because a community covenant will require them to avoid “sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman” while at school.2 It will be a while before we get there, though.

Enjoy your Sunday.
Señor Blanco
1. His post reminds me of this quote from Blood Meridian or The Evening Redness in the West, by Cormac McCarthy.
2. Note how the advocates for LGBQT rights in the article are saying that denying TWU’s potential students access to the practice law is somehow a victory in equality of access to the practice. It has been illegal stop someone from practicing law on the basis of personal characteristics (including religion) since the Charter came into affect over 35 years ago…at least, until now. Some piggies are more equal than others.

The Female of the Species
Rudyard Kipling

 

WHEN the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride,
He shouts to scare the monster, who will often turn aside.
But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

When Nag the basking cobra hears the careless foot of man,
He will sometimes wriggle sideways and avoid it if he can.
But his mate makes no such motion where she camps beside the trail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons and Choctaws,
They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws.
‘Twas the women, not the warriors, turned those stark enthusiasts pale.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

Man’s timid heart is bursting with the things he must not say,
For the Woman that God gave him isn’t his to give away;
But when hunter meets with husbands, each confirms the other’s tale—
The female of the species is more deadly than the male.

Man, a bear in most relations—worm and savage otherwise,—
Man propounds negotiations, Man accepts the compromise.
Very rarely will he squarely push the logic of a fact
To its ultimate conclusion in unmitigated act.

Fear, or foolishness, impels him, ere he lay the wicked low,
To concede some form of trial even to his fiercest foe.
Mirth obscene diverts his anger—Doubt and Pity oft perplex
Him in dealing with an issue—to the scandal of The Sex!

But the Woman that God gave him, every fibre of her frame
Proves her launched for one sole issue, armed and engined for the same;
And to serve that single issue, lest the generations fail,
The female of the species must be deadlier than the male.

She who faces Death by torture for each life beneath her breast
May not deal in doubt or pity—must not swerve for fact or jest.
These be purely male diversions—not in these her honour dwells—
She the Other Law we live by, is that Law and nothing else.

She can bring no more to living than the powers that make her great
As the Mother of the Infant and the Mistress of the Mate.
And when Babe and Man are lacking and she strides unclaimed to claim
Her right as femme (and baron), her equipment is the same.

She is wedded to convictions—in default of grosser ties;
Her contentions are her children, Heaven help him who denies!—
He will meet no suave discussion, but the instant, white-hot, wild,
Wakened female of the species warring as for spouse and child.

Unprovoked and awful charges—even so the she-bear fights,
Speech that drips, corrodes, and poisons—even so the cobra bites,
Scientific vivisection of one nerve till it is raw
And the victim writhes in anguish—like the Jesuit with the squaw!

So it comes that Man, the coward, when he gathers to confer
With his fellow-braves in council, dare not leave a place for her
Where, at war with Life and Conscience, he uplifts his erring hands
To some God of Abstract Justice—which no woman understands.

And Man knows it! Knows, moreover, that the Woman that God gave him
Must command but may not govern—shall enthral but not enslave him.
And She knows, because She warns him, and Her instincts never fail,
That the Female of Her Species is more deadly than the Male.

The Semantic Game

Of minor note, there is a controversy in Alberta over Catholic Schools and their practice of asking Catholic teachers to sign ‘Catholicity’ Agreements as a condition of employment. The concern being that some LGBTQ teachers have expressed concerns that their employment may not be secure.[1] (Never mind that a religious school firing someone on the basis of sexual orientation was ruled illegal over 20 years ago.) Alberta Catholic schools insist they need to hire Catholic teachers. A “Catholic lifestyle” is a necessary and reasonable expectation, says the Catholic Schools, otherwise Catholic School’s existence is meaningless.*

This is a fine way to have a semantic battle, which you eventually will lose.

Some advice: do not play this semantic game. Referring to your religion as a “lifestyle”, as “Catholicity”, is playing the semantic game of the progressives. I get that you are trying to downplay any signs of oppression or intolerance, but softening your language looks like you are subordinating your faith in order to satisfy the Left. The Left’s strategy is always defect-defect, your capitulation is seen as weakness, and they will demand more, not leave you alone.

The Catholic faith is fundamental, being a connection to a higher power, providing moral guidance, and a close community. That’s not a ‘lifestyle’.  They should say so.

Señor Blanco

 

*This is a problem because Alberta (and Saskatchewan) are required to provide two school systems: one public, and one Catholic (mostly…it’s complicated). This was done on the Provinces’ creation, to make Québec happy: see section 17 of the Alberta Act, amending section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

[1] This acronym seems to change on a daily basis. How long before it’s a hate crime to use the wrong version? Kafka laughs.

Cantandum in Ezkhaton 01/13/19

I hope your week went well. It’s time for installment two of some posts of note in the Reactosphere, along with my own rambling, which I’ll try to keep short. One thing about red-pilling is you start to ask what the purpose of EVERYTHING is.

Something that bothered me this week was the attribution of agency to that which cannot have it. This article discusses how suicide is the biggest killer of men under 50 years of age in the UK. Another, a Bell Canada campaign about mental health  affecting everyone. Suicide does not kill people, people kill themselves. Suicide is the label. Mental health is not some separate agency unto itself. This language is a Marxist way of categorizing things by one characteristic so a central authority can control it. (See Spandrell’s work on bioleninism for how similar thinking is used by the Left to obtain political power.) The problem is that by attributing agency in such a manner, people begin to see such issues as outside themselves. It’s a war against suicide. And where is suicide? Out there somewhere!

But people cannot fight against ‘suicide’ or ‘mental health’. They cannot wage war on ‘poverty’. But you can make appeals to people’s emotions, to donate money and repeat mantras about personal commitments against these non-agents. This is comforting because people feel like they are solving a problem. But not with any actual change or real action in their lives (the only way they ever could actually help out). Whoever leads the campaign gets money, prestige and power to boot. A great deal all around…except for those needing the help. But I digress…on to the Reactosphere.

An appetizer: the left eats the left, because the Dems love POC, unless you are not the right kind of POC.

Anti-Gnostic poses the question: if not its people, then what is a nation?

Porter comments on Yahoo’s reports on the “basket of deplorables” in Singapore.

Talk about sunk cost fallacy: American Sun gives a brief history of ‘Woke Capital’. Porter offers an analysis of the same phenomenon.

A Millennial / Boomer fight breaks out in the comments, under a post about a comment fight, over at PA Blog.

Astute observations from Malcolm on the current Zeitgeist, Bird Box, and blindfolds.

AlfaNL brings the good news so the healing can begin: toxic masculinity is now a psychological disorder. ‘Toxic masculinity’ may be translated into simply ‘masculinity’. It’s about time: all that stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression (which enabled us to survive as a species, built civilizations and makes the ladies swoon) is clearly, in [The Current Year], not creating safe spaces! (Don’t say you did not see this coming. It’s been a work of 14 years.)

Mr. Briggs, Statistician to the Stars, has incontrovertible proof that GLOBAL WARMINGTM is…asinine. He also discusses it in “This Week In Doom – It-Must-Be-Progressed”, where he describes exactly what led me to begin questioning the cult of climate change:

We are reminded, too. About that spurious 97%, this peer-reviewed (and therefore guaranteed in its purity) paper. What interests us is not global warming, but the shrieking method of control, always signaled by the shouting of “there is no debate!” The shouting is necessary, because, of course, there are things not subject to debate that nobody would shout about. These are awfully few in number: for instance, we need not debate the person who says aloud and in earnest “I cannot speak”.

It’s the shouting that indicates the subject which must not be debated rests at best on tenuous grounds, or at worst that it is known to be false but politically desirable. If global warming were not political, nobody except for a handful of unknown scientists would care, say, about eddies in the Pacific. But that it is, we must all care and we must not disagree with the chain that connects any event to global-warming-of-doom, even if that chain is obviously forged of wet crepe paper.

Also, a guest post by Ianto Watt on fun with liars, the MSM, true political polarization, and saving the Empire.

EvolutionistX has some thoughts about why refined sugar is no good for you. I’ve cut sugar out and I must say I don’t miss it. The only time I actually benefit from it is when a migraine is coming (a can of Coke sometimes stops a migraine dead). I suspect that our bodies were not meant to handle constant simple sugar intake. I think we have an insulin-based blood-sugar regulation so that (esp. late summer/fall) when sugar-rich food is around, we can eat it before it rots, storing the calories for the coming winter. Evolutionist X has a more satisfying point of view (with some research, unlike my anechdata.) She also posts Part One of ‘A theory of male and female Sociopathy’. I cannot summarize, but please RTWT.

From Setting the Record Straight, Culture Meet Axe: Game of Thrones. I’ve not watched or read any offerings from the Game of Thrones franchise. The books are long and I’m not sure I want to invest that much time. Friends say both the TV show and the books are worth the time, often citing the brutality. Mr. MacLear’s work is a nice counterbalance to the near monolithic support the franchise seems to get.

But if you’re only going to look at one Mr. MacLear posts, see his thoughts on mate selection and nationality.

American Sun provides its perspective on Alexandra Ocasio Cortez. Her assent reminds me of the rise of another allegedly attractive leader in Canada. Alexandra comes off as unsophisticated, unbalanced and ignorant, and I suspect she is fed most of her ideas by the ones really in charge. This is probably me just being more concerned about factual precision and less about being morally right. If her experience is anything like Trudeau’s, she’ll be the MSM’s darling…until they can make more money trashing her. Oh well, at least she’s only a Senator, and not in charge of a country (yet), unlike the current ruler of the Liberal Party of Canada:

Kent

“When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”  – Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians 13:11.              He’s not there yet..not at all.

Speaking of the Liberal Party of Canada, here’s a missed entry from last week. Throne, Altar, Liberty is a Canadian blog, written by Gerry T. Neal, concerned about the integrity of his nation and his people. He posts a full disclosure of his positions and prejudices.  A taste:

We had a strong sense of who we were as a country in our national identity based upon our Loyalist history and heritage which served us well in two World Wars. Sadly, much of this has been forgotten by Canadians today. This national amnesia has been actively and aggressively encouraged by the Liberal Party of Canada. For a century the Grits have proclaimed themselves to be the party of Canadian nationalism, while doing everything in their power to make Canadians forget the history and heritage that make us who we are as a country, such as stripping our national symbols of all that would remind us of that history and heritage. This was done because the Liberals see our Loyalist history and heritage as roadblocks standing in the way of their perpetual hold on power. The only consistent value the Liberal Party has ever had is its own power. It is the embodiment of everything I loathe and detest.

I have to agree. I have a laundry list of problems in Canada, and most stem from the Liberal Party and its insistence that, from it’s cathedral in central Canada, it plays a game of cultural chauvinism: central Canadian culture is the best, and the masses in First Nations and the outer provinces WILL be forced to serve it. This attitude justifies depriving people of their livelihoods, wasting countless billions on socialist schemes, and in some cases, taking children from families so they can be properly ‘educated’. They’ve been at it so long they now use the harmful consequences of their ‘woke’ policies from decades ago to justify doubling down on the principles behind those very same policies. They are either stupid or avaricious. They are simply using the current “arc of history bends towards justice” progressivism to obtain power. Enough…back to Gerry.

He also has an excellent piece on the life and martyrdom of William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury during the English Civil War.

Lastly, two MSM pieces. Father Raymond J. De Souza, and his take on the role of church and conservatism in a liberal democratic society. I don’t think he goes far enough in recognizing the outright hostility of progressive societies to faith of any kind (besides, ‘diversity being our strength’) but I am glad to see him stand up for faith and tradition in a society trying to mutilate both. And The Lord Black of Crossharbour, explaining why Trump is good for the United States.

That’s what I’ve got. I hope it’s useful. Enjoy your week.

Señor Blanco.

Cantandum in Ezkhaton 01/06/18

For the last few years I have been reading the blogs of the neo-reactionary camp. This movement of thought and philosophy started up with fellows like Nick Land and Mencius Moldbug. The thing that attracted me to it was their focus upon a Machiavellian analysis of the world: do not see things for how they should be, or how they should ideally appear, see them for how they are. They have expanded my horizons greatly. (For newbies, please see this introduction.)

A big part of accessing this overlooked body of work was Nick B. Steves This Week in Reaction, over at Social Matter. They used to go through hundreds of reactionary blog posts a week and write short summaries with links, and some nice pictures to boot. Many in the Reactosphere have expressed their gratitude to Mr. Steves over the past week for all his efforts over the past few years (I believe he had been publishing since 2016.) Mr. Steves ended This Week in Reaction due to time constraints.

To Mr. Steves: thank you sir, the work put into TWiR was excellent. I have benefited from it greatly. I hope the future has the best in store for you.

I did a weekly ‘Quote’ post last year, and thought it was useful. On a similar theme, I’ll be posting some notable works from the Reactosphere, or those of interest to our cabal, here each Sunday or so. The title, as above, is Cantandum in Ezkhaton, or I believe “chant against the end times” in Latin, using the Greek word for the end times. (Please correct me if wrong.) The use of Latin and the reference to the Christian end times are common in the Reactosphere. It’s worth your time to see why.

Here we go:

Fox News host Tucker Carlson dropped a bomb here, by criticizing Senator Mitt Romney’s New Year’s Day Washington Post op-ed (a recycled catechism against President Trump), then analyzing the causes of discontent in America, showing sympathy for the Left’s most hated: men and families. His analysis points out where exactly the lines should be drawn in a potential US civil war. Many took notice of the themes discussed in the Reactosphere: American Sun and Heartiste, for starters.

AlfaNL provides instructions on How to git gud wit women. It’s a part of his upcoming book Life’s Game. There is a great deal of wisdom about relations between the sexes here. I have a friend who knows a friend who hung out with a guy whose lawyer may have seen an early copy of the book. Alf’s journey is red pill goodness and a great story about taking risks, trusting your intuition, and finding your place in the world.

Evolutionist X discusses women and STEM, with some sane explanations about why a 50/50 split is actually not a rational goal.

Jim gives Marxism, as currently applied, the beating it deserves.

The best ever Hitler reacts video. This one mocks Patreon’s banning of Sargon of Akkad, and the subsequent fall out which caused notable “Intellectual Dark Web” scions, such as Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, and Dave Rubin, to leave . I’m not big on the controversy or the whole “dark web” idea, but the attitude attributed to Silicon Valley in the Hitler video seems appropriate.

Gad “The Gadfather” Saad and Matt Ridley (of The Red Queen fame) have a chat about evolution, evolutionary psychology, idea pathogens, morality, and climate change skepticism. This is a bit outside the Reactosphere, but Mr. Ridley is well spoken and reasonable, and I hope he avoids being burned as a heretic.

Razib Khan discusses the evolution of religion. From a reactionary perspective, this may help explain why the “current year arc of history bends towards justice” progressive ideology looks more and more like its preaching one true faith, chanting catechisms and persecuting heretics. I suppose it’s like Johnny Cash once sang:

I went drifting
Through the capitals of tin
Where men can’t walk
Or freely talk
And sons turn their fathers in
I stopped outside a church house
Where the citizens like to sit
They say they want the kingdom
But they don’t want God in it.

This has taken some time. I see now why Nick needed a break.

 

Mexi-Can / Can’t-ada

I recently visited Mexico for a week. There were some stark contrasts between Mexican and Canadian society which I cannot let lie without comment.

On entry into Mexico, everyone’s bags were x-rayed. I was subject to a random search by Mexican authorities. This included a search of my bag. The officer, dressed in a plain uniform, asked me why I was coming to Mexico, how much money I had with me, was I bringing any agricultural matter with me, and whether I had any goods I was selling while in his country? His questions were part English and part Spanish, and I had to convey my answers sometimes in broken Spanish. He asked me how much currency I had, and when I gave him the amounts in Pesos, US$ and CAD$, his response was that I must tell him in US$. He asked me about the books I was bringing into Mexico, what they were about, if I liked them, and searched them for concealed pockets. His questions were about my purpose and character, and while appearing somewhat indolent, there was no question that if he thought I was a bad person or had bad intentions, there to break his country’s laws, I would be sent home. Once he was satisfied this was not the case, he let me enter. His concern was for the safety of his country.

On my return to Canada, I was also stopped for a random search by Canadian authorities. Only my bag was x-rayed, and everyone else passed through unmolested. The customs officer, in uniform, but sporting sleeve tattoos, confirmed that I had bottles of Tequila which did not exceed my exemption from value added tax. He then did a hand search, admitting it was my black duffel bag which caused the “random” search, information which no doubt people actually doing illegal business could use to prevent the inconvenience of the rule of law. He asked no questions about the books, how much currency I had, and only seemed interested in whether I had meat with me, or had something otherwise subject to value added taxation. I did not. His search of the bag ended quickly and abruptly when he found a loose $5 US dollar bill in it, which seemed to strike the fear of God in him.

In Mexico, I am interrogated until officials are satisfied I am there with no malevolence. This occurs because Mexican customs cares about the unity, safety and security of Mexico.

In Canada, I am glad handed until officials have made a significant show that value added tax will be assessed, that the Canada Customs workforce is sufficiently diverse, and that my rights under the Canadian Charter were not infringed, including the right to be questioned in French, a right which probably costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to make available, all so the pretense of collecting $9 in value added tax, should it be owing, is maintained. This occurs because Canada only cares about taking its “fair share” from its citizens to equalize its citizens. Which means to maintain the appearance of being ‘woke’ and ‘sensitive’ to all the possible ways people differ, by language, gender, sex, race, ethnicity, and any other head of difference. All to maintain equality by according unequal treatment to all on the basis of those characteristics, making a custom set of rules for the conduct of each citizen, thereby promoting the disunity of the nation, at the cost of its safety and security.

Speaking of customs officials, they act like family in Mexico. They laughed, argued, flirted with each other, they supported one another, were quick and practical when it came to dealing with travelers, and overall, and made it clear it was them, as a unified force, versus bad people intending to do bad shit in their country.

“Behave yourself, or we all will act against you, extranjero!” says the Mexican. Mexicans care about Mexicans.

In Canada, they all look utterly miserable, frustrated, like a Gulag inmate, who knows that once he moves all the rocks across the road today, he’ll have to move them back where they came from tomorrow. There is no comradery, no caring, no unity among them, and it is no surprise as each asks: “Did I get this job because I’m competent, or due to my race/religion/sex/gender/ethnicity?” I’ve seen enough to know this is because they know they are only preserving the appearance of security in favour of the appearance of diversity.

Further, under the Charter, they know a potential criminal must be treated as innocent until proven guilty, but that their actions, which they undertake to protect the nation, are presumed to be a breach of the perpetrator’s rights until it is shown they were justified. Not to mention, that if they take action against a person of a different race, religion, language, ethnicity, they may be skewered as a racist, sexist, bigot, or other such label for progressive heresy and lose their jobs, their standing, and face a modern equivalent of exile as punishment.

“Please behave yourself, because having to enforce the law means we are criminals, because it means diversity is not our strength and our privileges are not checked, so stranger, please pay the taxes and try to leave the country how you found it…” says the Canadian. Canadians do not care about Canadians, because they may not care about them without guidance from Ottawa and their local Human Rights Board, prescribing which people may be cared about and how, which must always be based on their status as victims based on the characteristics listed in the Charter.

One final point. While in the airport in Mexico waiting to fly home, a boy in one of the bathroom stalls started screaming. Clearly, he was scared and perhaps hurt. He had probably had an accident of some kind: children are children. He was desperately crying for his mother. An attendant went to the stall to see what was wrong, and this frightened the boy who cried and screamed louder, asking for his mother. The attendant told the boy he would be okay, and he would find the boy’s mother. I assume things were worked out from there. The Mexican did this because he cares about people.

In Canada, no such thing would occur. The boy would be left to howl. This is because anyone who cared enough to help him would face potentially being labelled a pedophile for entering a bathroom stall where a boy is using the toilet. There are no attendants, because Canada has forgotten that people use bathrooms and not the other way around. So, it is up to the other users, none of which can act upon compassion because the best they can hope for is indifference, if not condemnation, for their actions by puritans looking for sinners in everything. And so the child, cared for in Mexico, would be left in agony in Canada.

Mexico remembers its humanity, even with all the troubles they have. Mexicans care for Mexico because they care about Mexicans because they care about human beings.

Canada has gone mad, and in the madness replaced human considerations with a cult of progressivism. Canadians care not for Canada because they cannot ‘care’ for Canadians because the only acceptable form of ‘caring’ is a religious rite of progressive affirmation which affirms the cult and not the people. As a result, they do not care about people because caring for people as humans is discouraged and offensive: the only sanctioned way of caring for people must be based on their class as “historically disadvantaged” minorities. This is why an ex-Al Qaeda member who killed a US military medic gets $10.5 million for his time at Gitmo, while veterans who get their limbs blown off in that very same war are told they ask for too much when expecting compensation.

Canada has devolved from a unified nation, to a loose collection who see Canada as an ever-shrinking pie for which they ungratefully must take as much as they can while the getting is good. Hence the reason why Québec’s Premier can, in the face of $13 billion in federal transfers to his province (a net drain on the revenues of the federal coffers), express his gratitude by openly advocating for the extermination of the livelihoods of those who, through taxes, make a net contribution to those same federal coffers, and then without any sense of hypocrisy or irony send one of his Ministers to claim that those he would see impoverished have no cause for offence. This is utter ignorance of the human condition, a disdain for people, a disdain for Canadians, and a disdain for Canada, and it is all sanctioned by Ottawa, who has abdicated its sovereignty and responsibility, preferring to keep up appearances rather than keep the country unified, safe and secure.