Spooky Scary Sunday Morning Coffee 10/31/2021

Muh-wah-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!

Well, at least one manufacturer understands what the FAUXVID crisis is really about. Note, no claim the stuff does anything about viruses. Available at your local Home Depot.

Thomas F. Bertonneau, a fine writer with The Orthosphere, passed away recently. Check out the In Memorium here. I linked to many of his articles in the Cantandum in Ezkhaton days.

Also from The Orthosphere, the only self-assessment test that matters: Why You Are Probably a Fascist. Probably?

The Eternal Anglo Seax graces us with some short fiction, on the importance of learning to find your own answers.

Throne, Altar, Liberty gives a very brief history of the USSR, in the context of the Spirit of Lysenkoism, very alive and kicking in FAUXVID times.

Mr. Vladivostok has a good post on the origins of Australian authoritarianism.

Thomas777 stops by at Bronze Age Pervert’s podcast. They discuss historical revisionism and WWII. Get the first half for free here. Subscribe on BAP’s Gumroad site for unlimited access to all episodes.

Over at the Worthy House, a review of Theodore Kaczynksi’s Industrial Society and It’s Future. (This work is otherwise known as the Unabomber Manifesto, published by NYT and WaPo back in 1995 in exchange for him ceasing his mail bombing campaign.)

Severian, at Founding Questions (the new residence of Rotten Chestnuts), discusses the now-near extinct obligations of society, in Duties, killed by transactionalism.

Z Man’s weekly column at Taki Mag deals with dropping out of the mass media shit-storm that is the modern age.

Banned Hipster posts a totally based sequence of short videos from Rabbi Yaron Reuven, who predicts another Holocaust if the practice of usury does not stop. And not that we need more, but more proof the FAUXVID crisis is not about the virus, or a pandemic, much less keeping us safe.

Speaking of, William Briggs rates the FAUXVID vaccines, for those of us in the Kafkaesque position of being required to take them.

Aggregator of the week: Brett Stevens over at Amerika. Check out the ‘News’ postings, the latest of which is here.

To close, the Ritual: Tonight, we’re summoned for a divine cause. Remembrance, no, but for their future loss. This chapel of ritual, smells of dead human sacrifices from the altar…

A Judgement Day – Adjustment Day by Chuck Palahniuk

What do you get when Fight Club and The Turner Diaries have a baby? Why am I resorting to this fucking tired trope? Both are answered by Chuck Palahniuk’s 2018 fictional work, Adjustment Day.

The story begins part way through. Palahniuk relies on flashbacks throughout the book to explain how the story got rolling. A man named Talbot circulates a Blue Book which outlines a philosophical basis for a revolution in the United States of America. He instructs a minion to build a website where people’s names can be listed, bad people, listed as those deserving of death. Others can vote on names posted there.

Come Adjustment Day, Talbot’s disciples kill those people who rose above a minimum threshold of votes. Talbot’s game: to kill off people who want to start another world war to reduce the inventory pesky young males. I like this Talbot guy so far. Killers get their reward by collecting the ears of their victims, which through genetic testing are verified to belong to the people on the list. A high number of kills gets you high rank in the new societies. The US ends, and splits into three different countries: Blacktopia, Gaysia, and Caucasia. This is where things get weird.

Palahniuk writes well, but it is hard to decipher what, if anything, he has to say about the various themes he introduces. Sometimes he seems on the border of profundity, and sometimes he appears to be mocking his own writing. (He even explains why this book is not just Fight Club, but the self-referencing in the story seems a bit conceited, although I do not think he himself is conceited.)

There is an excellent theme throughout, and that is if you insist on dealing territorially by race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation exclusively, you end up dealing in human lives in quasi-economic terms, and become the very war mongers killed at the start of the book. Further, concerning yourself with only one aspect of a populace within a nation causes you to be blind to what other factions are doing or want, including when they are seeking to take your power.

Was the book worth the time? Palahniuk uses graphic descriptions of killings, torture, sex acts, and castration, throughout the book. I am not sure what it accomplishes in the end, and this is always a flaw. But, the themes I mentioned above are a warning to us about the current morass of identity politics we find ourselves in, and something people of all political and ideological leanings could use to read. Plus, there are many, many times when the book is laugh out loud funny and ridiculous.

On that basis, I suppose it is worth checking out. But, it will be a slog at times.

Where We Are Now – Giorgio Agamben

I recently read Giorgio Agamben’s Where Are We Now? The Epidemic as Politics. It had been recommended in a recent review over at IM1776.

I suggest that anyone interested in a philosophical analysis of the political underpinnings of the current FAUXVID crisis check it out. It is a collection of essays and interviews written over a year ago which tracked, and in some ways predicted, the ratcheting of the FAUXVID crisis to the current level we see today.

To Agamben, the crisis is not about health, but is about politics. In his mind, the ever increasing and irrational responses of our government to this pandemic are out of fear that without imposing measures that amount to unprecedented tyranny, they would not survive.

Recurring themes throughout are that man has lost his spiritual connection to anything higher than himself. Being reduced to a purely material being, the carrying on of life itself is paramount, without any other considerations, in order to produce the maximum number of heartbeats out of each and every life. Since there is no soul, no meaning to be found outside the individual’s bare existence, we gladly agree to sacrifice everything else in order that our corporeal existence continues.

I will admit I like this collection of essays because he agrees with my own thoughts about the ongoing crisis, given that very clearly, the powers that be use the fear of bodily harm to justify an unprecedented level of tyranny. Our betters, however, do not even prescribe measures that would preserve our bodies. The masks, social distancing, and vaccines all blatantly cannot and will not save us from the virus. Rather, they only serve to modulate our now constant fears, so we can be manipulated.

It is available at Amazon. I also understand that it may be found at libgen.rs.

On a Touchy Subject – Abortion Access in Canada

Scott Johnson over at the Naked Dollar recently completed an article mentioning abortion laws around the world. (The Real Problem of Roe v. Wade.) In it, he mentions Canada is one of four nations with full abortion on demand. To Mr. Johnson’s credit, his article is an excellent piece on aspects of the abortion debate in the USA, and I think he reaches the right conclusion on Roe v. Wade and its judicial merits (or, lack thereof). This brought up some long standing questions in my mind about the issue in Canada, though.  Abortion in Canada is not regulated on a federal level, but rather provincial and territorial and so Canada has thirteen distinct abortion regimes. This is not much different than the US, as Roe v. Wade appears to have made access to abortion constitutional, but the 50 states can still restrict it within their own jurisdictions. See the recent Texas legislation and controversy as an example.

Like so much of health care in Canada though, there are minimal standards laid out by the federal government, but each province is left to implement those standards. It is Canada, and most Canadians, including our own Prime Minister, who fail to understand the federal/provincial distinction. Most federal politicians fail to understand this distinction because it is useful to do so, as it allows them to maintain the illusion of government effectiveness I have mentioned before.

The Canadian socialist liberal egalitarian regime has hit its limit. It has become patently clear that it cannot vote, spend or legislate its way to give effect to its utopian promises made over the last 60 years. With no options left, it raises issues it has no control over, in order to give the appearance of being competent and capable. Abortion is one of these issues, and the Ottawa regime regularly raises it, in cynical fashion, in order to polarize Canadians and get them to vote for one oligarchy in the regime or another.

In Canada, abortion is considered a medically necessary procedure. So, with our health care systems, women can have access to them. (If you object to that sentence on the basis that all people who were assigned female at birth should be able to access abortions, you are at the wrong blog. To get to the right blog, close this browser window and put this site on your blocked sites list.) Typically, abortion policy is set by provincial health authorities, and not by the legislatures, nor by the federal government. This makes sense: abortion is a hot potato, so no politician wants to actually touch it.

A look at the various provincial health care websites shows that abortion on demand is available to women with term limits. Limits range from 12 weeks for Prince Edward Island, to 24 weeks and six days in British Columbia. (The Québec website mentions that a medically necessary abortion, perhaps where the mother’s life is in danger, is available no matter how far along the pregnancy is. I suspect this is the same in all provinces.) So, contrary to claims by Ottawa that a woman has the blanket right to an abortion, this is clearly not the case, given the term limits and qualifications. (There appear to be private clinics that provide these services as well in some provinces. I took a quick look and it appears they follow the same guidelines as government funded providers.)

So what exactly are federal politicians, like Justin Trudeau, talking about? The ‘right’ to an abortion is actually a complicated legal decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the issue of criminalizing abortion. It is not an expressly stated right in any constitutional document. Let’s take a time machine, way back to 1988 and the Morgentaler decision.

At that time, the Criminal Code criminalized abortions that were not performed on “women who had not obtained a certificate from a therapeutic abortion committee of an accredited or approved hospital”. Dr. Morgentaler had a clinic which provided abortions contrary to the Code, and was indicted. He went all the way to the Supremes trying to get out of the charges, and the argument he made was that the restrictions on abortion in the Code violated women’s rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There were basically seven assertions of Charter breaches, and one was successful: the Code was held to breach a woman’s rights under Charter section 7. It states:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

The decision is one of those object lessons in why having a plurality of judges can lead to disaster. There were four separate sets of reasons, with five judges writing three concurring sets of reasons, and two judges dissenting saying there was no right to an abortion in the Charter. To muddy matters further, Justices Beetz and Estey even said that you could criminalize abortion and have it be constitutional. In their minds, the provisions at issue just went too far in this respect. Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney did try a few times (if memory serves) to pass laws that would criminalize abortion, but I think Parliament was loathe to enact them and he failed. No federal government since, as far as I know, has tried to restrict abortion.

The Canadian government, then, can criminalize abortion in Canada, they just cannot go too far. (What the magic “too far” line would be is anyone’s guess.) Restrictions on abortions therefore fall to the provinces, which they all do to some extent. There is no express extant right to an abortion, and not even a hard limit on criminalizing abortions in Canada. Even if the Charter expressly gave a right to an abortion, it would still be limited by section one which guarantees the rights subject “to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” (another phrase shrouded in judicial haze), along with the ability of governments to use the not-withstanding clause (section 33) which would allow Canada or a province to basically say their law operates not withstanding section 7. This is actually a major problem with the Charter, in that all the rights that really matter (the ones you can use to assail the government) can be made moot by legislative decree. Further, as Nova Scotia found out in 1993, a province may not put restrictions in place on abortion if those restrictions amount to criminalization of abortions. (This is something to note about the fight over access to abortion in Canada in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It was about Dr. Morgentaler being allowed to make money on providing abortions. References to women’s rights and access were simply a tool lawyers used to help him win. Such arguments remain useful distractions in Canadian politics to this day.)

Ottawa does retain some influence over abortion services, however, under the Canada Health Act (Act). The broadly named Act serves one purpose: ostensibly, to give provinces federal money to improve health care delivery in each province to a common national standard; in reality, to serve Ottawa’s political purposes, which allows them to dictate policy to provincial governments, effectively interfering in an area of law for which they are restricted by the Constitution Act, 1867.  (See subsections 92(7) and (16).)

As always is with Ottawa, carrot and stick are used together. A province must provide access to all medically necessary care before they get funding from Ottawa. This is how Ottawa can influence if not dictate health policy to the provinces, by threatening not to give them money if they do not adhere to Ottawa’s standards. Sure, you could say “no thanks”, but then Ottawa would be sure to point out how your province is refusing the money, make accusations that you are failing to provide medically necessary care, and then you can try to win your next election painted as a monster. Do not worry: most politicians are too self-serving to even consider refusing the money. (Money which is taken from the provinces’ taxpayers, which makes Ottawa the ultimate middle man, giving people in the provinces their money back after being filtered through countless layers of federal and provincial bureaucracy. If you object to that sentence on the basis that Ottawa is actually fulfilling a Robin Hood role, you too are at the wrong blog. See instructions above.)

To summarize: there is no stated right to abortion in Canada, just a judicial ruling that says criminalizing it may breach the rights of women under section 7 of the Charter. In reality, it is provincial health authorities that prescribe various restrictions on abortions. However, Ottawa, using taxpayer money, pretty well makes it politically impossible for the provinces (who control health care) to outright ban abortion.

(Mr. Johnson also wrote a book of fiction, about what I suspect life on North American college and university campuses is actually like in the era of Wokeness. It is called Campusland. It is an engaging and entertaining read, and I admit I read it with the suspicion it relates to actual real-life events. Check it out here at St. Martin’s Press. Also available at Amazon.)

Sunday Morning Coffee 10/24/2021

One’s duties depend on what station one occupies in society. You know what to do because you know who you are. In the 19th century, that sort of idea still made sense to a lot of people. In our completely marketized, individualized what’s-left-of society, the concept of duty has entirely disappeared. We’re all freed from the constraints of the society in which we live, but we’re thereby detached from a sense of who we are and how we should live. We’re all left to construct a wholly autonomous self, but, if truth were told, very few of us have the psychological capacity to do so, and it’s not easy to imagine a world in which we did. Hence, too many people, especially women, end up taking prescription tranquilizers, or numbing themselves with opiates. I wish that I could see a more or less clear way forward. I can’t, but I have a hard time conceiving of what we have lasting much longer. No matter how reprehensible I find the Chinese regime, those who rule them appear to have a better idea of how people should live in order to thrive than those who rule us.

mblanc46, commenting on the post Folie á Deux, at Founding Questions.

I keep reading and hearing people talk about the unprecedented level of state control, interference and surveillance in the lives of citizens. It appears the FAUXVID crisis somehow magically imbued governments with the authority and power, plus inclination, to plunge towards tyranny. It’s here in this interview with Marion Maréchal, a right wing former French politician and think-tank founder. It is here in this article about a nurse in Ontario who is sure she will be fired because she refuses the FAUXVID vaccinations. William Briggs notes it here in an article about why mandatory vaccines for children is a bad idea. We started seeing it in March 2020, as in this post at An Und Für Sich, made at the behest of Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben.

I suspect other causes in jurisdictions other than Canada. But in all cases, I highly doubt this disregard for personal liberties guaranteed by our much vaunted constitutional documents came out of nowhere. The roots of this in Canada go back to the reign of Pierre Trudeau (Justin’s Daddy), who enacted the much vaunted Charter of Rights and Freedoms, properly known as the Constitution Act, 1982. (When you cannot even call it by its real name when you enact it, you may be hiding something.) In that document, now so potent in Canadian law that even the Sovereign of Canada, Queen Elizabeth II, must adhere to it, lay sections 1 and 33.

Section 1 says all the rights in the Charter are “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. Whatever does that mean? I’d go into the thousands of pages of Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence on the matter, but that is just more of the obfuscation I mentioned earlier. In reality, it means that fundamental rights are now only those mentioned in the Charter, not from any other source, and if limitations on those rights are imposed by the government and you do not like it, as long as the government can demonstrate those restrictions are justified in a “free and democratic society”, too bad for you.

If that little trick does not work, then section 33 gives governments a get out of jail free card. They may simply say the law they are enacting operates notwithstanding the Charter, and they get a five year pass on being held accountable for it. This only applies to certain rights, though. If you read what those rights are, you’ll quickly see section 33 gives governments the power to ignore all those fundamental rights which would allow people to take action against them, stop the government from arbitrarily putting people in jail, or forcing people to get vaccinated. Your right to have all of this imposed on you in both French and English cannot be interfered with, though. It’s nice to see Pierre had his priorities right.

(I suppose one could say the electorate could vote the offending government out in the next election, but two problems: 1) The government can delay or simply not call an election, because the right to vote is also subject to section 1 of the Charter; and 2) the Canadian electorate keeps putting people like Justin Trudeau back in power, so accountability is not something they value.)

My point: the roots of the FAUXVID tyranny are not something new and unexpected. Our politicians laid the seeds for this back in the 1970s, and made them paramount over all other laws in the early 1980s. Our current plunge to tyranny has been developing ever since. And even worse, courts are totally backing the governments in this plunge. It’s no shock to lawyers who study the Charter in law school, and it should be no shock to citizens. Canadian governments are not overstepping their authority. They are using the tools as they were intended to be used. The only question is why they restrained themselves for so long.

Indeed, this tyranny may have its roots going back much deeper. That, honour codes, and what is actually happening street-level in the United States, is discussed in the latest Myth of the 20th Century Podcast with guest James Lafond.

What a busy week in the blogosphere.

Fisted by Foucault has an excellent Saturday Commentary and Review, including an introduction to China’s version of de Tocqueville and his version of Democracy In America, called America Against America.

Alf looks at the blackest Black Pill of all, and yet light escapes.

Founding Questions looks at the new economics of scarcity by politics.

Z Man on China’s new role in US politics, the New Bogeyman.

William Briggs, Statistician to the Stars, has a guest post on ‘The Science’ and its use as propaganda.

Banned Hipster had a stellar week. He wonders why so many people are quitting their jobs stateside? Is it because they are embracing owning nothing, renting everything, and liking it?

IM1776 posts a review of Agamben’s FAUXVID essays, now collected: The Epidemic as Anti-Politics.

A newly discovered blog, The Sperg Box, with the aptly named post: A Lovecraftian Meditation on the gripping Existential Horror of Americanism as seen by an Old Stock Yankee to the tune of Primus, which assuredly one is told; sucks – or, an exercise in fatalism encapsulating the gnawing dread of metacognition that your life is a scripted drama and you are a mannequin – or The Black Pill.

Another fellow aggregator is Nikolai Vladivostok at SovietMen. Check out his latest Word from the Dark Side post. As well, new to me, Mogadishu Matt with What I’m Reading, Listening to, And Concerned About.

To close: Can you confess that you thrive in chaos? You’re a sorceress and your eye is on the lost.

Sunday Morning Coffee 10/17/2021

My apologies for the premature and accidental posting of a draft version this a day early.

Dr. Deena Hinshaw, Alberta’s Chief Medical Officer, apologizes after the death of a 14 year old from brain cancer is reported as a FAUXVID death. He tested positive two days before passing away, after cancer had been slowly killing him for months. Which goes to show that like so many other diseases, you are likely to get it in a hospital. His sister revealed the truth on social media. I now eagerly await the claims that this proves FAUXVID can cause brain cancer.

Speaking of FAUXVID, William Briggs, Statistician to the Stars, does his 101st FAUXVID update.

Banned Hipster discusses the founding values of the USA: “White supremacy, a republican form of government, state sovereignty, Enlightenment liberalism, and Jeffersonian agricultural democracy”. I’d only add a tendency towards slavery, in all its varied forms, from plantations, to factories, to cubicle farms.

Going back a bit, Nikolai Vladivostok over at Soviet Men discusses just how WEIRD we are. (White Educated Industrialized Rich Democratic.) It might cause you concern how very different we are from the rest of the world. I suggest pondering the causes. Do it while you can though, because we are getting less WEIRD by the hour.

Alf has new material at the Garden of the Internet gives a summary of the 2020 election. He has a link to an interesting article on the chaos in the Trump White House in the aftermath, and Sydney Powell’s proof of election fraud.

A little ditty to end the week:

Sunday Morning Coffee 10/10/2021

William Briggs, Statistician to the Stars, published his 100th FAUXVID update, pondering how long it has been, and how much longer this will go on. Following up, a guest post on the pharmaceutical industry as mobsters in FAUXVID times.

Charles Haywood does an excellent review of Ernst Jünger’s The Forest Passage. Jünger’s book predicted many of the problems we have today, and offered some ideas on what to do about it.

Nikolai Vladivostok, at SovietMen, back in January identified the correct response to FAUXVID, and it was China’s. The induced FAUXVID panic, like our Prime Minister, will go away once people ignore it.

Scott Johnson, at The Naked Dollar, does a quick survey of abortion laws around the world, and skewers Roe v. Wade.

Quintus Curtius in his podcast asks: Never mind what others think, what do you think? (This link is an automatic download.)

If you like these kinds of short aggregator posts, check out Winners, Losers, and Links over at American Sun. They appear to be doing these every Friday. Also, subscribe to Niccolo Soldo’s Fisted by Foucault for his more extensive Saturday Commentary and Review.

Not that you lied to me but that I no longer believe you has shaken me.

Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil.

Sunday Morning Coffee 10/03/2021

I really do not like the MSM in Canada. They really are just phoning it in, for instance, this little nugget:

Despite claiming to be austere stewards of the country’s finances, no party ran on reducing debt. Which means that for now, the electorate has given the new government licence to spend to fuel a robust recovery.

This was written in the context of the recent Canadian federal election. What this fine columnist for the Financial Post is saying is that if no political party runs on a promise to do something, then the Canadian electorate is deemed to give them free licence to do the opposite. Notice how the electorate is without any agency by this logic. It would not be so galling, except this is how governments in Canada tend to act. Also, note the assumption that somehow government spending can cause a robust economic recovery. World War II is an example, but I have never seen it work since I was born. Canada’s next recovery will only come when governments open up natural resources to foreign investment and stop the endless grift of regulatory and judicial approvals. On to the suggestions.

Mr. Soldo gives an excellent summary of discontent in the EU, including Swedish immigration policy, Hungarian politics, and German Green Party.

Gerry T. Neal, at Throne, Altar, Liberty, ties sacrifices, scapegoating, at the ‘anti-vaxxer’ label together. Very well done.

Let’s see if it even makes it to press time, before the Twitter squad removes it.

Severian at Founding Questions asks why the US regime has not take its revenge?

The infamous Spartacus letter. It is a comprehensive look at the lies and conspiracies around the FAUXVID virus and crisis. I am not sure what to think of it, but if you are interested (links to a copy at Zero Hedge).

Banned Hipster asks: Why Democrats Hate Working Class People? Governments and elites really are trying to, with each election, replace all the voters with ones they like more.

(Funny, I type “the rulers elected new voters” into Google, and the first two hits are Elections Canada websites.)