Reading

I think I’m very quickly going to stop reading most modern books. I’ve already stopped reading books by contemporary women. This happened when I read Guns of August and A Distant Mirror, by Barbara Tuchman. People rave about these books, but Tuchman’s tendency to paint men in leadership acting like teenage girls was too grating. It is a sign of the times, however. These days, most women authors I see are putting out soma for the masses, largely auto-ethnographic emotional journeys (which largely aggrandizes what are otherwise mundane experiences). Don’t get me wrong, there have been very strong women authors in the west in the past, and Edith Wharton remains one of my favourites. However, our modern times produce modern books which reward modern follies and most authors these days happily fall into them.

I started listening to the audio version of Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad. In an instant I was enthralled. Every word was chosen for conveying clearly Conrad’s unified vision. He had laboured and struggled to create and convey this vision, and nothing in the story is wasted. You can go back a second time and see relations, allusions, meanings that you missed the first time. Most modern writing is a chore to get through, and very rarely even delivers what was promised by its title, much less leaving one feeling challenged or rewarded. It merits no looks, not a second look. It all seems to boil down to “look how smart and woke I be, and you be too!”

This comes on the heels of reading Bronze Age Pervert’s Bronze Age Mindset. He seeks a return to the principles and discipline that produced men at the crescendo of personal development as men. These are not the men of WWII, or the American Revolution, but of Bronze Age Greece. Those men who had little in the way of modern medicine or technology, but nonetheless, by faith in themselves and an acceptance of the inevitability of death, could by their will conquer whatever they put their minds to. They were students of constant striving to achieve the pinnacle of what a human being can accomplish. We have none of these left today in the West. So it goes with our warriors, so it has also gone with our authors.

Look at this diary entry by Bertrand Russell, on meeting Joseph Conrad. This was spontaneous:
It was wonderful—I loved him & I think he liked me. He talked a great deal about his work & life & aims, & about other writers…. Then we went for a little walk, & somehow grew very intimate. I plucked up courage to tell him what I find in his work—the boring down into things to get to the very bottom below the apparent facts. He seemed to feel I had understood him; then I stopped & we just looked into each other’s eyes for some time, & then he said he had grown to wish he could live on the surface and write differently, that he had grown frightened. His eyes at the moment expressed the inward pain & terror that one feels him always fighting…. Then he talked a lot about Poland, & showed me an album of family photographs of the 60’s—spoke about how dream-like all that seems, & how he sometimes feels he ought not to have had any children, because they have no roots or traditions or relations.
Who writes like this anymore? Who talks to others like this anymore? Who is this observant of other people anymore? We simply do not see it, and most certainly not in our written forms. Perhaps we have become too dependent on technology (TV, then the Internet and smartphones) for our interactions and not enough on our actual real perceptions and intuitions. Whatever it is, we in the west have fallen far.

In Unqualified Reservations, Mencius Moldbug once said that you should always read from primary sources, meaning, from authors writing about things that happened in their lifetimes, for which they actually witnessed. Going back to primary sources is a joy because authors from hundreds of years ago seemed to hold writing to much higher standards. (And, with no copyright, many are cheap if not free.) Perhaps it was because books were not cheap, and there was no plethora of writing available for free via the internet. You had to have higher standards, or you simply never got published. I enjoy old books from old eras for this reason. I’m not really learning anything valuable from modern books, there is nothing for those who strive to be something more than what they already are. The writing does not make demands of you to learn more, get smarter, or up your standards. There is no reward for delving deeper. Such is the times.
Advertisements

Cantandum in Ezkhaton 06/16/19

This week will be a shorter Cantandum, as I’m going out of contact for the weekend. I’ll make sure next week’s post catches everyone up.

“It is high time to be alarmed at the state in which we have been living for some years past. Think of the generation now springing up in our towns and provinces; of all those children who, born during the revolution, have never heard anything of God, nor of the immortality of their souls, nor of the punishments and rewards that await them in a future life: think what may one day become of such a generation if a remedy be not speedily applied to the evil.”

You might think it’s about our times, but it is Chateaubriand writing about the French Revolution in the 1790s (published in 1802). Plus ça change plus c’est la même chose. Courtesy of Mr. Burtonneau’s look at Chateaubriand’s writings on the troubles in France, over at the Orthosphere.

PA blog on the Polish TV series Raczo and what it can teach us about Nationalism.

VDH reviews the reasons why the western middle classes are so very angry.

Dr. Spencer with a satellite image of why gasoline prices may go up soon. I feel a great disturbance in the false flag side of the Force.

Throne, Altar, Liberty on how Justin Trudeau is helping the Conservative Party of Canada, but they seem to ha e no idea what to do with it:

Evelyn Waugh once said that the problem with the Conservative Party was that it “has not turned the clock back a single second” and the Canadian incarnation of the party has given no indication that it plans to do so any time in the near future. Yet Justin Trudeau would have us believe that the Conservatives, if elected, would set the clock back by about a hundred years. My response to which is to say that if this happens, it would be a good start, but we need to go much further than that.

The Council for European Canadians with a history of monogamy – Without Legally Enforced Monogamy, Western Civilization Is Finished: Part 1 of 3.

Guillaume Durocher reviews Bronze Age Pervert’s Bronze Age Mindset.

The Apocalyptic Revolutionary posts a translation of Alexander Dugin’s critique of René Guénon’s doctrine of counter-initiation. It’s long but recommend nonetheless.

Al fin on bureaucratic bloat and its impacts in US higher education. Also, a short look at a theory of mind by Nick Chater, The Paradox of the Flat Mind.

The Orthosphere with a quick review of the origins and requirements for worship. A very clever post on how to untie the knot that is reality: Occam’s Razor, the Gordian Knot & the Thomist Marlinspike. A response to BAP’s essay, Old and New Paganism, on what the post-modern religion worships: The Nightmare Pantheon. On the troubling economic feedback loops in Louisiana.

Steve Sailer on Canada’s diversity problem in sports.

Audacious Epigone on the stats on the abortion debate.

The Myth of the 20th Century crew with this week’s podcast on why complex societies collapse.

Alf has moved to Garden of the Internet, and AlfaNL is dormant.

James True on Standard Oil, Rockefeller, and his successful foray into mind control.

A particularly relevant Summary Against Modern Thought: Equality is False, from Mr. William Briggs. He gives his thoughts on the new Adversity Score point system on the SAT test. An essay on Identity Politics and Transhumanism, and how such politics have transcended into a religion heading towards human sacrifice.

Z Man starts the week with a comparison of the EU and the Athenian led Delian League. Followed by a look at the widening gap between the Left and the Right in the US. On the ‘I’ Question or IQ. A very good essay on what comes after neoliberal progressivism and why working within that system is pointless:

That’s probably the hardest thing for newly minted rebels to accept about right-wing identity politics. They have been conditioned to believe they must act on their beliefs in order to get others to do the same. In reality, there is no way forward within liberal democracy to attain the goals of national populists or identitarians. The reason is the system is fully evolved to perpetuate itself. Any effort by outside elements to engage the system result in the outside influences being fully incorporated into the system.

American Sun with Reflections on the Prussian Army, all about the Army’s State within the State, and how an instrument of the monarch overcame regal power. An excerpt from the Myth of the 20th Century crew’s new book Exit StrategyOra et Laborum: Restoring Moral Order to Capitalist Societies. The Best post for lawyers this week: Enough of This Scmhitt. Carl Schmitt was a German legal philosopher, concerned with the potential for illegitimate results that arise from what appears to be legitimate legal interpretation. A sample:

I guess the next time I default your parking ticket at a $75,000 fine because you forgot to show up for court, just remember that the due process that allows you to appeal was inspired in part by the brutal slaughter of tens of millions forgotten Europeans, most of whom were peasants or serfs, at the hands of Machiavellian princes and cruel theologians. Remember further that these institutions, these neutral spaces, have histories, and that you need to look closely at calls to overturn them, to see if the people doing so really understand what’s at stake and to see if they even understand how they operate in concrete reality. Look closely and try to determine whether they seem serious. I have to do this every day with the “organizers” who come in, heads filled with the latest intelligence- and corporate-approved social psychology nonsense, calling for social revolution.

Evolutionist X on why small dogs have psychological problems. On the relationship between colonialism and wealth.

Anatoly Karlin on the reactionary migration from blog to vlog.

From the Council of European Canadians, on Ottawa’s latest plan to protect Canadians from “online bullying” (and other icky stuff). I have to say that small fines for ‘offensive’ content would be a great way to generate revenue.

Malcolm discusses the new book by Angela Saini on race as a social construct. Following up, he discusses why suppressing discussion of HBD is harmful.

Cantandum in Ezkhaton 03/17/19

I keep trying to write a quick one or two paragraphs on a weekly event to start off these posts. They’ve all been blossoming into their own posts. I think that is a good sign. I’ll be on the road for most of next week. I’m going to try and post using only my smartphone. We’ll see how it works out. (This might cause me to buy a tablet to make posting easier. Thoughts on which to buy? I’ve recently switched to Samsung Galaxy and thinking about a Samsung tablet.)

When did “asylum seeker” appear in US culture? Audacious Epigone has your answer. In Canada, it was [the Current Year], when Justin Le Premier let all those Syrian refugees in. My son and I discussed this a while ago, and he said that this might have been something Le Dauphin has done that actually helps those vulnerable groups he’s always catechizing about. How are they doing these days? Not so well, it seems.

Victor Davis Hanson on the War Against the Dead, largely fought by destroying reminders of the past.

330px-Princess_of_Mars_large

Orthosphere has a really good essay on the Anthropology of Martian Romance: Part I and Part II. Also, on the usefulness of ‘talkers’, and a follow-up comment on not useful talkers. A great commentary on the problems with inclusivity statements and policies. On the various iterations of the right, including the CTRL-ALT-DEL Right.

Horrorterror!!! Malcom on Climate ChangeTM getting very scary. Further, on the man who has not grovelled. Why you should support Tucker Carlson. Filed under “Weren’t they supposed to learn to code already?”, Air be raycis! But don’t worry, Michigan is cracking down on wrongthink hate crimes, with help from the SPLC! Also, his take on the Christchurch massacre.

Audacious Epigone on marriage as bliss. Also, a quick lesson by example on what Blue Checkmarks and Frontlashing mean, in the Christchurch massacre context.

Alf on Anger.

American Sun with an introduction to Andrew Yang, candidate for President. A very interesting Five Friday Reads. Henry Delacroix on what it’s like at the Arnold Classic lifting festival. A thoughtful essay and review of Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism: European Visions of the Post-catastrophic Age. A taste:

The system is not broken, or the result of an evil cabal of elites – it is robust, and working precisely as it is meant to run. It is driven by the worst intents of all humanity, which is, at its beating heart, made up of people who imagine themselves to be individuals, and therefore given to doing harm to one another and multiplying evil for themselves. Modernity enables this tendency rather than controlling and suppressing it, as all traditional societies have done throughout the ages. Western Civilization has surrendered itself, it has not been conquered, and it is therefore the struggle against the weakness of the West which is the paramount struggle of the contemporary Dissident – a lesson Western Dissidents seem resolutely opposed to learning.

Plus,

This is a trap of the modern Faye seems unable to escape: that the superior can cease to be superior if they are deprived of their responsibility to the inferior; to breed men like cattle may produce the best genetic specimens, but without a spiritual goal, a higher purpose, provided by the care of the noblesse oblige of the aristocrat, one is left with a race of Eloi, a sham aristocracy, afflicted with its own sort of debilitating equality. Especially lacking the wisdom of a morality, one will find the result of the best eugenic project to be something slightly less than human.

From our Statistician to the Stars: this week’s installment of the continuing Summary Against Modern Thought. Mr. Briggs on upcoming changes in use of statistical significance. Ianto Watt’s Orthodoxy’s War: Part III. USA as a declared Catholic Nation State. A funny bit on men LARPing. Also, Mr. Brigg’s reads my mind! Finally, This Week In Doom.

Anatoly Karlin on the movement of the Overton window. Plus, what makes a bad investment. Also, giving college admissions a bloody nose. How Mussolini did nothing wrong.

Evolutionist X on Why People Believe in Conspiracy Theories, and why some are more equal than others. Also, how people are using ‘Social Construct’ incorrectly. What ‘Heritable’ actually means (well worth your time).

Courtesy of Clarissa, Budweiser gets woke. No wonder it is often cited as the most popular beer up here.

800px-Salt_Lake_Temple,_Utah_-_Sept_2004-2

Mormon Temple. Salt Lake City, Utah

History of Mormonism on Social Matter. (Links to Social Matter have been shaky of late. Wait a few minutes and try again if you get the database error.)

Lord Black of Crossharbour on Pelsosi’s recent surrender on the Trump ‘investigation’.

PA Blog on it takes three to start a movement. Also, his take on ethnic differences worth honouring in Micronations. Plus, time for a detox.

Word on Fire blog on Jordan Peterson and the Cross.

Keep on reactin’

Señor Blanco

Christchurch

In case you have been blissfully away from the media, you’re aware of a mosque shooting in Christchurch, New Zealand. I visited Christchurch years ago. It’s lovely. But like everything else of beauty in the west, it is being wasted in the name of ideology.

Botanic-Gardens-Christchurch-111024

It might be Yggdrasil. Christchurch Botanical Gardens.

Here is one Canadian media’s take if you want to go down the rabbit hole. Note how finding out the actual facts of the incident requires wading through many articles, most of which deal with “viewpoints” or “condemnations” or the next round of useless government action, by controlling guns or social media. It is this sideshow that insures more of this will happen, not less.

Should I get contrite at this point because I’m not expressing the Ministry of Love’s sanctioned two-minutes of outrage? Should I say “it is a tragedy that so many lost their lives…blah f—ing blah”. Of course it’s a tragedy. Regardless of whether I like their religion I can understand that the people who were killed died brutally and the survivors and families must be in anguish.

I think the best explanation I saw came from Ramzpaul. I hope I’m not totally riffing off of him. I’ll say this: a primary purpose of a government is to provide a secure nation. When you start getting truck attacks, or mosque shootings, or other such acts (which if between nation states, would be war), then your government is clearly failing at doing its most basic job. Western democracies are failing to understand this basic premise.

We now have very different peoples living within one ostensible nation. Differences in culture cause friction, and the violence erupts. If you are a student of history at all, there are no surprises here. Western “democracies” now have a rote formula: condemn the attack, pretend we are better than that, and pass more laws and take more control over everyone’s life. All they are doing is tightening the lid on a pressure cooker. Eventually, explosions will happen.

 

Gratitude

I have a gratitude practice. Everyday, I pause for a moment and think about what I am grateful for. Some days it’s easy: my cat, my girlfriend, or the Grímnismál, for instance. Other days, it’s deeper: overcoming anxiety, the example of Christ on the Cross, or my seemingly inherent and innate purpose – to advance in confidence and faith towards the terrifying unknown.

Today I am grateful I have never had to see something like the caption below. You’ll understand why I get grouchy when similar forces start to appear in my country, or in my friends’ country to the south.

It was nearly noon, perhaps in November 1975, when my brothers, sisters, Mak, and I, among hundreds of other people, arrived at a place near Peth Preahneth Preah. It was a large, open ground studded with tall trees shielding us from the blazing heat of the day. Men, women, and children were gathered to witness a judgment on two people. Their crime, Angka said, was loving each other without Angka’s permission. Thus they were our enemies.

 

“When Angka catches enemies,” a leader had announced in the previous mandatory meeting, “Angka doesn’t keep them, Angka destroys them.”

 

One by one, the children, are picked from the crowd and told to stand near the two poles so they can see what Angka will do. It sounds as if we are about to see a play, an entertainment.

 

To the right of the poles are three wooden tables aligned from edge to edge to form one long table. Behind them, sitting on chairs, are Khmer Rouge dressed in black uniforms, perhaps in their forties and fifties, whom I have never seen before. Their necks, as usual, are decked out with red-and-white-and white-and-blue-checked scarves, draped over their shirts. They are well guarded by cadres standing with rifles behind and beside them. The cadres’ faces are grave. They stand still, straight like the poles. A few Khmer Rouge at the table whisper among themselves. At that moment I see a stash of spades, hoes, and shovels leaning against a pole planted firmly in the ground.

 

A one-horse buggy pulls up. Two cadres stride toward it. A blindfolded man, hands tied behind his back, is guided off it. Behind him emerges a blindfolded woman who is helped out of the buggy by another cadre. Her hands, too, are tied behind her back. Her stomach bulges out. Immediately she is tied to the pole near the buggy. Her arms first, then her ankles, with a rope about half the size of my wrist.

 

A woman in the crowd whispers, alarmed, “God, she’s pregnant.”

 

The blindfolded man’s arms are also bound to the pole. He’s calm, standing straight as his ankles are fastened to the bottom of the pole. Dressed in slacklike pants and a flannel shirt with long sleeves rolled up to his elbows, this man appears intelligent. He’s tall. His body build suggests he’s one of the “city people.” Like him, the pregnant woman looks smart, educated from the way she carries herself. She looks composed. Her collarless blouse with short sleeves reveals her smooth arms. Her once-refined face suggests a once-sheltered life.

 

Each of the Khmer Rouge rises from the table to speak. Their voices are fierce, full of hatred and anger as they denounce the couple. “These comrades have betrayed Angka. They’ve set a bad example. Therefore they need to be eradicated. Angka must wipe out this kind of people.”

 

Abruptly another Khmer Rouge at the table gets up, pulls the chair out of his way, strides to the front of the table, picks up a hoe, and tests its weight. Then he puts it back, lifts up a long, silver-colored spade, and tests its weight. He walks up to the blindfolded man.

 

“Bend your head now!” he commands, then raises the spade in the air.

 

The man obeys, lowering his head. The Khmer Rouge strikes the nape of his neck again and again. His body slumps, his knees sag. A muffled sound comes out of his mouth. His lover turns her head. The executioner strikes the man’s nape again. His body droops. The executioner scurries over to the pregnant woman. “Bend your head NOW!”

 

Her head bends. The spade strikes her nape. Her body becomes limp. No sound comes out of her mouth. Only two blows and she’s dead. The executioner walks away, his hand wiping the perspiration from his forehead. Suddenly a long choking sound is heard. The woman’s stomach moves, struggling. Everyone turns. Someone whispers that the baby is dying.

 

Oh…a cry from the crowd. The executioner runs back and strikes the body repeatedly until the struggle in it stops, still like the pole.

 

This was a brutal lesson. By now I know the Khmer Rouge’s dark side. I fear for Ra for avoiding Na, a defiant act against Angka. I am afraid her silent rebellion will carry a heavy price.

Ostracization

I’ve been thinking about Andrew Scheer and the dust-up around his less than instantaneous condemnation of a man who mentioned Pizzagate in a question to him last week. (Put short, the questioner mentioned Pizzagate, and Mr. Scheer did not immediately CONDEMN him for spreading such VICIOUS LIES!) I have a theory as a result.

All this virtue signaling and policing of language is not Progressives creating an ‘in group’. It’s about determining who should be ostracized. Not inclusion…exclusion. That’s why there is no antonym to ‘racist’, ‘homophobe’, ‘misogynist’ or any other term they slap on any heretic. To be labelled one or more of them is to be branded for out-group treatment, ultimately, ostracization (these days, a form of exile but within your own nation, where you lose your job, are publicly shamed, and made to recant).

It’s worse these days as no one is at the reigns of what will get you ostracized. And so we have the current out of control purity spirals where the definition of the above terms expands with every perceived offence. (At least in the past, you could count on a good religion to set some limits on what got you exiled or burned at the stake.) Heck, it’s almost like not engaging in holiness spirals is itself a ground for ostracization.

Am I condemned because I don’t care that some guy says ‘Pizzagate’? Or am I condemned because I don’t show the appropriate offence at what someone else has labelled as ‘outgroup’ identification language?

Quote April 22, 2018

“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”

Aleksandr SolzhenitsynThe Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956

024.Jacob_Wrestles_with_the_Angel

 

Song: Portrait of a Headless Man

I am a man with strong regrets
I followed great deceivers
Believe in headless leaders
They played their game, true sons of Cain
But I was a hopeless dreamer
With my head deep in the clouds

Posts:

Evolutionist X: Thoughts on the loss of social capital.

Vivian Krause: Hey, Canada Revenue Agency, tell us about Tides?

Why I Fight:

For things we know, recognized by Gnon, and are in danger of forgetting.

 

Victimization

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

We worry a lot in Canada about sorting out victims. First Nations, women, LGBQTA2S+, Muslims, francophones, immigrants and many others are all under the political spotlight because of their status as victims. Victims of immigration policy, economics, religious and racial phobias, residential schooling, colonization, internment, oppression, government policies and decisions, microagressions, misogyny, man-spreading and -splaining, and sometimes just plain bad luck. The ways to be victimized are now justification for Canadian governments to splinter our society into victim classes. I don’t like it. Victim means a perpetrator acted, and so, grievances to be redressed against such a perpetrator. Victim status is not neutral, as Liberals like to pretend.

(And often, where harms were suffered, the perpetrator turns out to have the same ideological background as those now parsing the victims, perpetuating the harm, not addressing it: I digress.)

When I encounter, work, or hang out with people, I am not interested in their victim status. Tell me your plans, loves, families, hardships, accomplishments, relationships, hobbies, trials and tribulations: a sense of your experience in life. Treating with someone based on their victim status dehumanizes and diminishes them, removes their agency (in your mind, but an insult to boot when acted upon), and reduces the ‘victim’ in stature so the sympathizing party feels superior. It’s awful stereotyping of a conscious and deliberate kind, whether against an individual or a group.

Canadian progressive political parties (all political parties in Canada, only varying in degree) have lately campaigned on this kind of disrespect. If they looked at it, they’d see they are doing nothing different than what’s already been done for the last 50 years of progressive politics (just the jargon changes) which at best might be neutral, but likely has caused more conflict. It’s a failing in our democracy and our constitution.

Canada got near universal suffrage in 1960. I’d tell you about the various groups granted suffrage at various stages…but that’s just creating victim classes for others to use. People under 18 don’t vote in Canada, and that’s the way it should be. Most brains don’t completely develop until they age 20+ years, and so one should not vote any earlier.

Universal suffrage encourages politicians to buy classes of votes through class bribery. It’s not a willful or malicious purchase, but rather, just how a system running on victimization tends to push decision making by perverse incentives. “Hmmm,” I think to myself. “As a politician, I can’t campaign on complex issues that impact people’s lives, because most people are not well informed, and they want sound bites, not sound policy.” After all, it’s Canada, and you don’t need a majority of the vote. Just appeal to enough voters in densely populated areas to get first past the post and get a majority of seats in Parliament (or a provincial legislature). If you convince a class of voters that you’ll give them more government benefits (bribes in any other context), you increase the odds they’ll vote for you. Such class bribery was identified in 1896 by William Lecky, although I suspect that if I read back further, Maine, de Tocqueville and Burke saw this coming too.

Except in Canada, governments cannot bribe classes of people, because they may not discriminate against people in favour of others. So sayeth the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (part of our constitution, and so the supreme law of the land). Note section 15:

  1. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

The Charter applies to governments and government actors, meaning even the decisions of university and hospital boards are subject to it.  So far, you cannot bribe particular classes because that would be discrimination, challengeable in court and vulnerable to be struck down. Provide to all, or provide to none, it seems. But wait, let’s read a little further…

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

The Supreme Court of Canada (the supreme arbiter of the supreme law of the land) has ruled that subsection (2) also includes “other analogous grounds.” If the group to bribe has a personal characteristic that is “immutable, difficult to change, or changeable only at unacceptable personal cost”, then you may bribe them as well. Citizenship was the first ground identified by such judicial fiat.

So, to bribe: identify the target class as “disadvantaged” because of distinguishing characteristics or analogous grounds. What classes can I bribe this way? Almost any, as long as I identify them as disadvantaged (victimized) and my bribes as amelioration for those disadvantages.

Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms was effective as of April 17, 1982. It has run 36 years. Perhaps it would not be abused if our politicians were not professional self-promoters, but had some other backgrounds, such as business, education, academics, health care, or dare I say…the clergy! But they do not.

Politicians are professionals making a living not for doing a good job of, but mostly for attaining, their offices. If the easy path to attain office is to bribe to classes of voters, then some will try it, and section 15 gives the rules: bribe only those classes who are victims.

If I’m a smart politician I play to groups already identified as victims, saying I’ll give them benefits in order to garner their votes. If I’m smarter, I identify new classes of “victims” with no voice in government (meaning, no politician pretends to represent their interests) and campaign on bringing them ‘justice’ for their victimization.

And here’s the nasty part: I’ll argue the only way to deal with any grievances, real or perceived, is through electing me and my use of the machinations of state, not by encouraging individuals to make their own lives better – hence, the diminishment and theft of agency of the individuals within a group.

Once in power, I must work even harder to maintain the victim status of my preferred groups, or else, all those bribes could be challenged and struck down. Thus, a perverse incentive to continue to keep groups victimized (if they are no longer ‘victims’, no benefits, no votes), and to establish that only I, through government action, can redress those grievances. Governments spend a lot of money affirming victim status these days: what else could an Office for the Status of Women, or a Motion M103, for example, be about.

After almost four decades of this kind of perverse incentive, it’s no wonder so much of politics divides society by victim class. Perhaps the better question is why it took so long, or why it surprises us. We placed victim status in our highest law, and so victimization became high status. Hence, the obsession with victim sorting.

Peterson

J.-Peterson-Photo-June-2017-760x427

Dr. Jordan Peterson has been in the news a lot. I have read both of his books – Maps of Meaning and 12 Rules for Life. I think they are important works, and I’d recommend reading 12 Rules. Maps of Meaning is quite involved and somewhat academic. It too is worth reading, but might be a difficult hill to climb. It will challenge you to accept that there is value in myths and religion. Value in communication of meaning. By myths and religion such meanings have survived a culling, an evolutionary process by which only that information which universally appealed to all men, because it spoke to something innate within them, survived.

Peterson also has a YouTube series of videos on this subject. If you want a good introduction to Peterson, see his podcasts with Sam Harris (#2), Joe Rogan, and Jocko Willink. (Check these podcasts out, and subscribe for a while. It’s worth your time.)

2218102

Dr. Peterson’s Maps of Meaning has been fundamental in my development. I was, about 18 months ago, faced with irrefutable proof of the existence of God. The next day, proof that God was not an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent being, but was explained purely in terms of natural processes: complexity arising from localized systems obeying localized rules. Being raised an atheist, I had no way of understanding this revelation.  But it burned inside me. I had to resolve these contradictions.

I had a profound connection, supported only by faith (which, when you have rejected “faith” all your life is difficult to deal with.) I had to acknowledge that I was but a speck in the universe, an insignificant outcome of the fantastic processes of life. I was, however, indelibly part of something so much grander than me that I could not comprehend it, but nonetheless, required I be responsible to it. Accepting that required an understanding and acceptance of my self, of my function, purpose and meaning. And of the choices I may make, and the indelible truths that I cannot avoid. Hence, Maps of Meaning.

024.Jacob_Wrestles_with_the_Angel

Peterson’s work can help you find the courage and strength to wrestle with such issues. And by that understanding, to have the courage and strength to deal with anything. It’s not about telling you how to be, what the truth is, and what to believe. To live, you must advance in confidence and faith towards the terrifying unknown. How that plays out is unique for each individual.

For anyone with something they don’t want to face up to, such a call can be troubling. If he shows a way to seeing the things you are afraid of, then that means people with such courage will see what you cannot face up to or admit. In Canada, we have a lot we won’t face up to, and Peterson seems to refuse to live with this any longer.

Thus, Peterson is vilified. He had the audacity to say that the State SHOULD NOT be telling people what words they must say, and to subject those who do not obey to regulatory and criminal sanctions. This makes him a fascist mystic, who joins a distinguished line of conspirators, such as Wagner and Carl Jung, now slandered by accusations that their philosophical and artistic work was all aimed to put the Third Reich in power (never mind that the Reich was nothing more than a pack of thugs.) He is alleged to be an exploiter of First Nations peoples (a cultural expropriator, no doubt, except that particular slur is now over a year old, and so the Left has more fashionable accusations to make.) “How awful is Jordan Peterson, anyway?” The answer, for all of these kinds of critics, is awful enough so you don’t have to see how awful you are, and how awful your progressive cult is. And judging by the amount of pure projection in these articles, whatever they’re hiding is pretty God damned awful.