Post-Election Open Letter

TL;DR – Trudeau will very likely remain Prime Minister with a minority government. Trudeau is a goof. The big mistake made by those against him was not speaking this patently obvious truth. Consequently, they should have told everyone to just ignore him or to dismiss everything he says as naïve, silly or foolish. Instead, they turned on each other, acting like performers in a Trudeau Circus.

Let’s have a chat, Canada. The election is over. Trudeau, while a little worse for wear, remains Prime Minister, and is likely to form the next government. This, in spite of his antics, hypocrisy, wrecking Canada’s reputation abroad, and really only accomplishing marijuana decriminalization and buying a pipeline with taxpayer money.

Never has there been someone so clearly incompetent in notional charge of this nation. But Trudeau is no dummy. He’s very good at marketing himself. And he is a master at manipulating his opponents. He remains our leader because he played a long con on us and we fell for it, hook, line and sinker. To Trudeau’s opponents: You are the reason he remains Prime Minister. “But no” you say? “He won’t survive the next confidence motion!” Wrong. He’s our leader for the foreseeable future, and I put a 40% chance he lasts until the next mandated election. Let’s look at how that happened.

It’s obvious someone else calls the shots while he is Prime Minister. At the exact moment he said “because it’s 2015”, I got that sinking feeling that can only be described as: “Fuck. We just put a five year old at the steering wheel of our country, and he can’t see over the dashboard.”

The country seemed to keep running right along the Progressive tracks, however. Clearly, someone else was doing the driving, while our Prime Minister was proverbially climbing out the sun roof, hooting at people in the street. Who was it who did the steering, then? Look at who benefited from the direction the country took. If you guessed those who use Social Justice as an instrument of power and control, Montreal Whigs, and internationalists, you’ve been paying attention. You got a hint during the SNC Lavalin scandal.

He is Mr. Indestructible. All his screw ups and the subsequent criticisms rolled off of him like water off a duck. If you’ve learned anything, Canada, it should be that Le Dauphin has gotten by in life using his charm to avoid the consequences of his mistakes or outright bad behaviour. At 47, he’s only going to get better at this, not worse.

I’ve known people like this, who just have that je ne sais quoi that lets them charm their way through just about anything. They are actually a lot of fun to hang out with, often will act as wing men, and very often use their skills to encourage social cohesion. They are daring and take risks. Everyone has a good time when they are around. But, you can’t expect your personal charm to get your country out of difficulties. And Justin’s charm cannot get Canada out of troubles that his mistakes cause. Don’t worry, Trudeau does not expect this of himself. His show is the Justin Show, and that’s all he worries about.

And what a show it is. He holds himself out as a leader for any social justice cause du jour. He’ll tearfully apologize for past ‘wrongs’, embrace people from disadvantaged groups, and loudly declare himself whatever wokeness trend is fashionable that day. Being the fearless leader he is, he’ll call out anyone not living up to his very high standards. Except of course, for himself. (I’m sure that if pressed, he’d say he prefers ‘peopleself’. I digress.)

And that was the big mistake everyone made. They let him dictate what the standards for conduct were going to be. He dictated to his opponents what the pressing issues were, what proper conduct was in light of those issues, and he demanded compliance. And his opponents ran around like trained dogs trying to please him. All he had to say was that Scheer hung out in the same place as some group, and that group was, like, Nazis, or white sumprEEEEmists, and Scheer would spend days disavowing them and the MSM would not stop pushing him on it. NEVER once did anyone challenge Trudeau on the underlying premises, that any of these parties were Nazis, or that being in the same area as alleged Nazis is explicit endorsement of them. If that were true, Trudeau is most certainly a Sikh separatist. Except he isn’t, and no one made any sustained accusation of that.

So, everyone was waiting for him to screw up, to fall from his high horse. To hoist him on his own petard. Just one little bigoted act and he was done, or so we thought. YET, in spite of all the people saying he was done, finished, “stick a fork in in it”, after scandal after scandal, his approach of that reporter, his blackface incidents, SNC Lavalin, Jody Wilson-Raybould, Janice Philpot, Gerald Butts, the utterly falacious prosecution of Admiral Mark Norman, Trudeau’s showing up late to diplomatic meetings, forgetting China is not Japan, and his farcical trip to India, he was far from done. None of these events put any appreciable dent in his support. And that’s where his opponents missed the boat and fell for his manipulation.

He is not a feminist or a cuck or an überdiversity guy. He only said those things so he could hold his opponents to those standards. He never applied them to himself, ever. (He gladly applied it to everyone and everything else.) And he got away with it. Why? Because he does not care about those things. And most Canadians really don’t care if he’s a hypocrite, or if he did dumb shit in his wild days, or if he throws his Ministers under the bus. He’s a charming and perhaps well meaning but misguided court jester. Who takes that seriously? Most world leaders don’t and won’t, which was a big fat clue hanging out for all to see.

But, his opponents ran around for four years showing how they were up to his high social justice standards. They attacked and ruined members of their own parties, disavowed their allies, and stood by while decent people got put through the wringer, to show how woke they were.

The Conservatives even went to so far as to hire a leading political consultant to punch right against a fellow conservative party. Andrew Scheer’s only real victory was seeing his right-wing rival fail to get re-elected in his own riding. It is very clear that the Conservatives are nothing more than a police arm over true conservatives and dissidents, working at the behest of the Liberal Party. Suckers. They ended up looking like a bunch of harpies running around shrieking about who was tolerant and who was not. Trudeau called the tune and they danced to it.

He’s the biggest alpha in the country now. Everyone called him a cuck, but he did not care. He cried in public, apologized, proclaimed himself a feminist, called masculinity toxic, all behaviours, which combined, arouse disgust in just about everyone not drowning in Progressive ideology. And yet here he is, still on top. Sorry, Raging Golden Eagle, but he was never Cuck of the Year. He’s an alpha, and he demonstrated it by behaving in a way that should be repugnant, and then made it clear he did not give a fuck. With that much bravado, is it any wonder he maintained power? No, it’s not.

What did you learn? Your enemies will try to win by forcing you to adhere to your own moral principles. When you let the enemy dictate your moral principles to you, and then hold YOURSELF to that standard, you’re finished. Stick a fork in yourself, already.

So what do you do with a guy like Trudeau? He’s a goof, which he’s verified so many many times. Everyone knows this on some level, so start saying it. Dismiss what he says as foolish and naïve, ignore him for the most part, and then move on to your plans and principles for dealing with actual issues. (This is what the Left in Canada does to dissenters that won’t be shamed, all the time, and look how well it works, minus the plans and principles of course.) Maxime Bernier is the only one of you who came close.

Govern yourself accordingly, Canada, or guys like Trudeau will keep doing it for you.

Election Prediction

Canada’s federal election is October 21st. For those who don’t know, Canada is politically a hybrid of the UK’s Parliamentary system and a federation like the USA. The Canadian government is bicameral, with an elected House of Commons and a Senate whose members are appointed by the Prime Minister, Canada’s de facto Head of State.

The Prime Minister is almost always the leader of the political party with the most seats in the House of Commons (although, no majority of seats is required).

The de jure Head of State is Queen Elizabeth II. Yup, the one from the UK. She is well liked in Canada, but has barely a ceremonial role in governance. Her representative in Canada is the Governor General, also appointed by the Prime Minister. (With all that authority to appoint, our Prime Minister looks more like a President.)

There are ten provinces who have similar political systems, for which the de jure Head of State is also Queen Elizabeth II. The big difference is they are unicameral, with one elected house, usually a Legislative Assembly. The Territories (look way up north) are held by Canada, but allowed local rule for the most part.

So you’ve got how it works in theory. In practice, federal power in the Canadian federation has been held by two factions: Toronto Tories (Conservative Party) or Montreal Whigs (Liberal Party).

Canada’s history is either one of these factions in power. Sometimes the ruling faction has a minority of seats in the House of Commons, and so they step lightly (as they are in danger of being turfed by a non-confidence vote, which ends the government and usually causes another election). However, one of those two factions has always been in power, and this coming election will not change that. As of now, both factions, Conservative and Liberal, are Progressive and highly so. It’s difficult to tell what the difference is. No matter who you vote for in Canada, the Progressives win.

When voting in Canadian elections, you vote for a local Member of Parliament in your riding. They represent their riding in the House of Commons. You are technically not voting for the leader. So, only those in the Montreal riding of Papineau vote for Justin Trudeau, leader of the Liberal party and Prime Minister, as a candidate. However, people often vote for a party, not based on the local candidate, but based on the leader of the party. So, the leaders of the parties tend to be the most important personality for campaigning purposes.

For the coming election, it seems the likeliest result is a minority government, based on what I’ve seen in the polls. The Conservatives don’t have the confidence of Canadians. Trudeau’s foibles and hypocrisy don’t seem to be hurting his party’s support sufficiently to end their reign. Either the Liberals or the Conservatives will have the highest number of seats, and may form an alliance with other parties to get a majority position, or go it on their own and hope that in a confidence vote, they can get enough support from the smaller parties to win.

I predict that we see a Conservative minority government. People are tired of Trudeau’s antics, and will want to give him a slap on the wrist. I don’t see the Conservatives allying with other parties. They could join with the Greens, if the conservationist elements of that party are strong, but the Greens have been spouting far left Progressivism lately, so not likely. The Liberals and the NDP would likely not formally join the Conservatives, as they are too far apart politically (even in the narrow Overton Window of Canada). This leaves the People’s Party of Canada, which is brand new, polling very low, and will likely get no more than a handful of seats. The Bloc Quebecois is another party the Conservatives could ally with, but that is a bit of poison pill, given the Bloc is a Quebec separatist party and disliked in the rest of the country.

So, Conservative minority it is. They do not have the skills, courage or leverage to make it last. Once they make a government, the Liberals, NDP, and Greens will all start howling about how Canada is run by racist, sexist, pro-life, flavour-of-the-month-o-phobic Nazis. The Conservatives will then start making apologies and purge anyone who has said anything non-PC. Within 9 months, the Conservatives will introduce a budget, Trudeau will lead the way in defeating the Conservatives (‘cuz Justin don’t compromise) and…within a year…we’ll be back in another election. There, my black pilled prediction.

A white pilled prediction would have a Conservative – People’s Party of Canada coalition with a solid majority. The notional conservatives would then have to take into account issues that Canadians actually care about or lose support from the PPC. Which would be funny, given that the PPC is an off-shoot of the Conservatives, after the party had a minor split at its last leadership convention.

I’ll be voting PPC in my riding. I’d probably just not vote otherwise, except for the PPC, who seem to be a party who could actually delay Canada’s accelerating slide into the decline and decay happening all across the west. Faint hopes I suppose. The PPC could also be a vehicle for real conservative (old Tory) principals to become acceptable discourse again. Plus, I’ve met my local candidate, and he seems like a decent fellow. The leader of the party, Maxime Bernier, has no problem calling people out. He rightly pointed out the Greta Thunberg is likely mentally troubled child who is being exploited.

Ramblings on 9/11

Today is the 18th anniversary of the WTC attacks in New York City. I’m not making light of the 9/11 attacks. Looking back, it all seemed so surreal then and it still does. Still, for anyone who lost friends or loved ones in the attacks and the aftermath, my condolences.

The entire affair took on a “staged” feel, from the initial videos of the attacks, the subsequent media coverage, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, all the way up to Osama Bin Laden’s assassination in 2011. I remember the announcement made after the first plane hit the towers, with the announcer sounding like he was reading a pre-written script which he did not believe. It’s not that these events were fake (although, that Bin Laden thing…), but rather, I think the entire treatment of it all represented a very well orchestrated campaign of news, opinion, and outright propaganda meant to create only one accepted narrative about the events, and provoke a certain response and insure compliance with (or acquiescence to) Washington’s subsequent actions which amounted to modern imperialism.

Recently, a Myth of the 20th Century Q&A podcast discussed favourite conspiracy theories. One such theory was that the Pentagon was built five sided to contain…something bad (insert nefarious music here). On September 10, 2001, that something got out! I note, to support this theory, that Slayer’s infamous album God Hates Us All was also released on 9/11. Its lead song, Disciple, is a poignant example of the nihilism, desecration of the Holy, and self-destructiveness now common place in our times.

I don’t think God has been punishing us since then, but rather, he simply abandoned us. Turns out, being left to our own devices is sufficient punishment all on its own.

Counter Currents did a retrospective on 9/11 on its 10th anniversary, which they reposted today. As part of that post, they featured a picture of the monument To the Struggle Against World Terrorism. I had never seen it before:

It looks garish to me. It was made by Zurab Tsereteli, a Russian painter, and now stands at Bayonne New Jersey. It was a gift from the Russian government to memorialize the victims of 9/11 and the 1993 WTC bombing. Vladimir Putin attended the ground breaking in 2005. Bill Clinton attended the dedication ceremony on September 11, 2006. (Insert comment about a good place to bury inconvenient corpses here.) It is supposed to be a tear drop falling down fractured bronze towers.

I see something different. It looks like an oil drop to me, which seems to be suspended in an underground cavern. I cannot help but think that the intent behind the statute might be a message from Russia (with love), that if the US continues its policy of empire and pursuing wars for the sake of controlling oil supply, it can expect more attacks. This is just magical thinking on my part. But, I raise it because three nations that the US has rattled sabres with this year, Venezuela, Russia and Iran are all major oil and/or gas suppliers which do not accept America’s attempts to globohomo them. Maybe this changes now that Bolton is gone, but who knows. (Canuckistan? Firmly in your pocket, USA. Saudi Arabia? Not sure who is in whose pocket, but the relationship is pocketed nonetheless. Iraq? Libya? Well, you saw what happened with them.)

It seems then that the potential lesson of the Struggle is not learned. But then again, when you have an empire, you do what you can to maintain it. In our modern era, controlling the world’s energy supply means having a lever on the sovereignty of every nation.

Meanwhile, in Canuckistan, Trudeau calls a federal election. It will run for forty days until October 21st, the same number of days Jesus was tempted in the desert by Satan.

The Walk A Mile in Her Shoes organization sponsors a lunchtime event in which the members of the patriarchy put on high heels so they can feel what it’s like to walk while being oppressed by footwear like the Wahmen. Following what Z Man said last October, guys who do this are taking the final step necessary to spontaneously become a literal door mat.


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.

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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.



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.


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?


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.