Cantandum in Ezkhaton 02/10/19

196w1o

“Why?” you ask. Tucker Carlson has your answer. It has something to do with people who matter losing their jobs.

Thoughts on Trump’s State of the Union Address, from Malcolm and at PA BlogJim also takes note. Follow up from Malcolm.

The Superbowl was last weekend. The Patriot’s won, beating the LA Rams.  PA made notes. Scholar’s Stage wrote on football generally, and finding purpose, meaning, and fleeting glory. Also from the Scholar, writing identitarian songs.

This week the polar vortex (allegedly, a Global Warming product brought to you by Climate ChangeTM). At one point, I walked to work in a wind chill of -40 (conveniently, °C or °F, you pick.) If I never have to look at long underwear again. Mr. Brigg’s warms my heart with a new term for climate change fanatics: Climate Liars. Vivian Krause on the millions of USD being spent in Canada to help such liars. But Mr Briggs sees a positive effect: it’s causing more male births.

White shoes lead to Twitter outrage, ‘cuz raycis! We are also officially the stupidest civilization in all of human history. Congrats! Although, if we are that stupid, how will we ever know we’ve proven that there were no dumber civilizations? And to my fellow Canucks who might argue this does not apply to them because they’re from Canada…

1280x720_81130P00-CEZDU

Christina: “Ahem, sir, you’re forgetting something!”…Enrique: “Si, ándale!”

 

Further Eye Catching Goodness

The Neo-Ciceronian Times on the rise of “Social Prosecution” under the increasing cultural power of the Left. Clarissa’s blog on why this is like Stalin’s era, but corporate not State driven, and so much worse.

Aidan MacLear on PUA Is Unnatural. I like where he goes with this.

Also from Mr. Briggs, notes on the Pope’s recent speech, who seems to have problems with the first commandment. The always special This Week in Doom – Diversity Statement Edition. Plus, his continuing Summary Against Modern Thought.

Anatoly Karlin on why the US left the INF treaty (spoiler alert: it’s China) and thoughts on AOC’s Green New Deal.

The Orthosphere on how to tell those actually traumatized versus those ‘triggered‘. Also, on Christian Pessimism. Throne, Altar, Liberty on the Gospel Truths of Christ’s Early Life.

Alf’s FAQ on Jimianity.

Malcolm on crimes against unborn children. Heartiste notes the update to sign language. Related, The Orthosphere on Freedom of Religion and Speech, and the Rise of the Cult of Moloch.

The American Sun was busy this week, with lessons from Irish dissent. Also, use of social media to feign populism. On the Marie Kondo phenomenon (the Netflix star showing tidiness and and discipline are not a disease), and what to do about the monopoly of tech giants? Plus, the five reads for Friday.

Evolutionist X provides her notes on reading E.O. Wilson’s Sociobiology. A links post on evolution, sleep and more. Plus, thoughts on kinship coefficients and the genetic ties that bind.

Sovereign Exceptions on the cost in lives of self-driving cars.

And just under the wire, “Bad” Billy Pratt at Kill to Party on MTV, REM’s Automatic for the People, the rise of AOC and the not-rise of Elizabeth Warren. Mr. Pratt, I loved that album too. It’s beautiful and clever, but there was something about it…like REM’s compass needle starting pointing somewhere else.

Keep on reactin’!

Señor Blanco

Advertisements

Cantandum in Ezkaton 02/03/19

Professor Jones says in Raiders of the Lost Ark that the first step in archaeology is going to the library. The line always stuck with me. My previous career was in an archaic form of IT. When technicians were having trouble with equipment, software or systems, I insisted they look at old trouble tickets and ask other techs if they had similar issues. There were few problems that someone had not solved before, and you could save a lot of time not duplicating the research of others.

Same thing in the Reactosphere. If I’ve got a question about politics, history, or power, there’s a good chance someone in the ‘sphere wrote about it, very often with a good primary source for it. Hence, my delight in being directed to this article on the substitution of religion for economics.

Marxism seems to have evolved to try and place human existence under rigid centralized control, based on plans driven by figures, to maximize production. (An example: James C. Scott’s study of agrarian planning in Seeing Like a State.)

Does this kind of thinking really work, ever? An example:

robert_mcnamara_official_portrait

Robert Strange McNamara – Longest serving Secretary of Defense

It was unwise to have Robert McNamara (who helped the US Air Force with statistics in the fire bombing of Japan) as Secretary of Defense under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson during the Cuban Missile Crisis and Vietnam War. He was intelligent, but he missed simple wisdom on human behaviour in war, which a reading of The Art of War and a year in combat service would provide. Colonel David Hackworth had this to say in an interview with PBS:

Q: Why was body count so important? Or was it?

 

Hackworth: McNamara was a number-cruncher and he wanted to have something to crunch, a number. The overall strategy was attrition, to wear out the enemy. By counting bodies, we would know the impact of the war, its success or failure. That became the standard measurement of success. It was the score, and everyone knew the score.

 

What happened was that body counting completely eroded the honor code of the military, specifically among the officer corps. It taught people to lie. The young lieutenants fresh out of the military academies were taught to lie. The generals, who were pretty proficient liars anyway, pushed the body count. A high body count meant great success. So, in every battle, enemy bodies were counted several times. If there were 200 bodies, suddenly the figure became 650 and it became, to quote Westmoreland, “another great American victory.”

 

It corrupted the officer corps and it appalled the soldiers, who by that time were mostly draftees. They were scurrying around the jungle counting bodies, which was a pretty awesome and terrible thing to do. It had a real boomerang effect on the military because it was like a cancer; it destroyed its soul.

The movie The Fog of War is McNamara showing why he was not suited for the role. I like McNamara, but he is a cautionary tale and an object lesson: Others have dealt with problems before and you need to learn from them. He speaks passionately about his errors because he knows they cost the lives of thousands if not millions.

McNamara is honest, even sympathetic at times, but did not learn until it was too late: There are some very critical decisions you cannot “numbers” your way out of. Sometimes you need to understand the non-quantifiable human aspects of the situation, hence his fallacy.

What Caught My Eye This Week

From Malcolm…fun! Just replace the therapist with the MSM. Much needed humour on North Korea. Also, Moloch needs babies…badly!

moloch-and-his-minions

New York State, circa 2019.

Aidan MacLear sets the record straight on Whores and Actors.

Alf has said goodbye to AlfaNL. I’d been reading for a few years, and always looked forward to his posts. He’ll continue posting at the gardenoftheinternet.com, and the latest is the need for a new religion.

PA comments on what I think can be termed ‘victimization chauvinism‘ (which, I think means, my victimization trumps yours, so your history is what I say it is). Also, thoughts on the Gamma type.

Evolutionist X does an excellent review of Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate. A bit of history: In ancient times, having the neighbours over for dinner meant something else. And her thoughts on Millennials and burnout. Millennials seem to have entered a phase of recognizing there are severe faults in the ‘system’. They are in that ‘doubling down will work’ phase. Hopefully, they’ll learn to find their own way. May I suggest this letter, for starters, my young progressives.

The Covingtion Smirk is not off the radar yet. A special guest post at Statistician to the Stars, eloquently confirming what we already knew: don’t trust the media without a long pause. Part One of American Sun’s study on the event. PA discusses the general trend which lead up to the uproar.

Scholar’s Stage on the history of words as weapons.

Dr. Spencer provides a transcript of Michael Chrichton’s warnings on the Climate ChangeTM “crisis” in 2003. It’s highly recommended. In a few places he is prophetic:

I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.

 

Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

 

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

And also this:

The deterioration of the American media is dire loss for our country. When distinguished institutions like the New York Times can no longer differentiate between factual content and editorial opinion, but rather mix both freely on their front page, then who will hold anyone to a higher standard?

The answer, as we’ve learned the hard way, are zealots in purity spirals with infinite standards.

Dr. Spencer also asks: If cold waves are caused by global warming, why are they decreasing? Also, Climate Audit considers the Pages2K Antarctic temperature data. It’s a highly technical blog, but if you really want to get into the science (whatever that means) behind the global warming industry check it out.

American Sun’s Interview with-a-yellow-vest. Plus, praise for Assad. A RTWT: Vitalist Reaction for Dummies. Also, Five Friday Reads.

William Briggs was busy this week: the next installment of his Summary Against Modern Thought. A Reactionary movie review – When Worlds Collide.  A survey of the Great Mustaches of History, and two This Week in Doom entries: the best one and the even better one. Plus, a guest post explaining how: “We have all lost our national identity. All of us. But ultimately, it doesn’t matter. Why?”

In the Orthosphere, the hierarchy that matters, and Hecate and the fork in the road (Medea, MacBeth and beyond).

Palladium’s take on the Davos Conference.

Faith Goldy Red Ensign

Obligatory girl with Red Ensign picture. Thanks Faith Goldy.

Faith Goldy has a video on Canada’s new laws and taskforce to deal with Wrongthink foreign interference in elections. I thought that would mean stopping things like this, or preventing offering assistance to your favourite DRC candidate, or using federal government funds to donate to her foundation. But no, it’s meant to keep interference by [Select evil party: Russians/Iranians/North Koreans/Basket of Deplorableans/Covington High School Kids] in [the Current Year] at bay. (As if any of those parties care. Trust me, if they want Canada wrecked, they simply need sit on their hands and let the Liberals win.)

Finally, the Reactosphere is well aware that any time you see a grassroots movement, there is big money from somewhere backing it up. Vivian Krause, at Rethink Campaigns, originally going after questionable fish farming research, has been tracking the big money behind the activist campaigns against oil sands and fossil-fuel pipelines. She’s even been getting time on the CBC. Canadians are noticing a sea change with the federal and provincial governments who are undermining the oil and gas, using the rhetoric of groups, which Vivian reveals, are funded by sources foreign to Canada.

Energy is vital to any country, and especially Canada, where it’s really bloody cold. And despite the well wishing of enviroactivists and Climate ChangeTM adherents, wind and solar power will not replace oil and gas by using magic spells such as “diversify and change the economy” and “get off fossil fuels“. Those undermining the industry have zero implementable options on what to replace it with (other than, the State needs to make it happen, which a brief review of 20th century history will show always ends badly).

Canada needs hydrocarbons now and for the foreseeable future. Oil and gas is a major source of tax revenue, vital to the economy and trade with other nations, and essential to insure people do not freeze in the dark. But Québec and British Columbia are lauded for not allowing the flow of ‘dirty’ Alberta oil.

Any country whose exercise of sovereignty over its energy industry amounts to a two handed approach of simultaneous dependence and undermining will find someone else holding that sovereignty in their place. This, where Canada finds itself, which Vivian is shedding some much needed light on.

Keep on Reactin’!

Señor Blanco

Cantandum in Ezkaton 01/27/19

nick_sandmann_jan._18__2019_810_500_75_s_c1

In Progressiveland, this offence warrants capital punishment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bang the Drum Slowly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rant Over…the Rest

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

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

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

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

jesusmary

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers!

Señor Blanco

Cantandum in Ezkaton 01/20/19

donald-trump-looking-smug

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

640px-maccari-cicero

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

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

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

Palladium on the rise of Kazakhstan.

If you need a chuckle.

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

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

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

father-tony-vanhee

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

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

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

The Female of the Species
Rudyard Kipling

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cantandum in Ezkhaton 01/13/19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Señor Blanco.

Climate

My view on climate change: it’s been happening since Earth had a climate, so it’s not just anthropomorphic. Increases in surface, atmospheric and oceanic temperature are likely caused in part by human action (with carbonic gasses being the likeliest cause) and the balance due to solar output and other factors. Our impact on climate is not neutral, but our planet is not the next Venus (need way more volcanoes.) It’s not clear if the net effects will be positive or negative. We should avoid attempts to make our climate static (meaning, no climate variance at all), as this is unachievable and undesirable. Yet, this is exactly what modern climate change ideologues advocate for (but don’t realize it, or don’t care.)

Climate change sophistry is really grinding my gears. The political mantra is that all climate change is caused by humans, and that climate change science is 100% settled and proves this is the case. The ultimate goal: to hold climate static in the same state it was around 1990. Those who do not ‘believe’ this to be true (odd, if the science is settled then they are denying facts, not lacking faith) are scum sucking Nazi alt-right Trump voting basket-of-deplorable science deniers who, by denying science, therefore by default deny gravity exists, and want to see the world consumed in fire. I’m glad they bring up gravity.

Problems

The science behind climate change is not “settled”, because no science is settled. Example: humans have considered gravity since they first fell out of a tree onto the savannah. Aristotle thought gravity was like-elements being attracted towards their natural place, and air and fire to rise to where air and fire go, and earth goes to earth. Galileo had ideas that gravity was related to mass and Newton further developed the idea of attraction between masses in his universal law of gravitation and constant gravitational attraction. Einstein took it up a notch with General Relativity (gravity is not a force over a distance between masses, but curvature in space-time caused by the presence of mass). All of this took thousands of years.

Climate change science has only been pursued with any vigour since the 1990s. If it took thousands of years to get a sufficient (not complete) understanding of gravity, then climate change cannot have been perfected in 30 to 40 years. We still do not understand if gravity is reconcilable with quantum mechanics, whether it has a force carrying boson (graviton), if it is a field (like electricity), or what happens if gravitational fields get really intense at very small scales or high densities. The LIGO results showing gravitational waves caused by merging black holes is exciting news, because gravity is not “settled” science. There is no way climate change science is either. Like every other field we will in 100 years laugh at our ignorance (as opposed to climate change zealots, who want to laugh at “ignorant” people right now, without all the discipline and rigour needed to actually learn something.)

Doubts (Dirty, dirty doubts.)

I did not doubt climate change before, and accepted whatever I was told about it. Then politicians acted as if they understood it, and since they know it, the debate is over. Any time you see a professional self-promoter saying there is no need for further inquiries…start making inquiries.

In Canada, politicians don’t understand climate change. Instead, all subscribe to the dogma that “it’s warmer: blame carbon” and promptly justify taxation (i.e. a protection racket) to address it as a ‘problem.’

Climate change advocates at least usually try to learn about atmospheric/oceanic dynamics before deferring to climate change dogma. Politicians and zealots could not wait and went straight to espousing the climate change liturgy to get votes. They now actively discourage people from learning more about climate change. Their MO: “carbon cause climate change, it bad; solution to bad, more government; people question justification for more government, bad.” Either agree with them, or be slandered, insulted and mocked, even if you just ask questions. This is not about encouraging discussion or education, it’s about using shame to control and maintain a narrative. Whenever you see this generally, it’s a play for power.

Most climate change scientists are honest, forthright about the limitations of their work, and avoid the arrogant intractableness of politicians and science popularizers looking to justify their positions and paychecks. No debate? Settled science? Go look at any serious climate change discussion forum – even people who agree that climate change is real are at each other’s throats because the various climate models do not agree.  They argue about degrees, vectors and causes of climate change like cornered badgers. And I’m glad they fight with each other so vociferously: a phenomenon potentially leading to profound climate changes, being abused by governments to justify more power, control, and revenue taking, is worth having a knock-down fight over. Just don’t look for it where it should be happening: in your legislatures.

Indolence? Opportunism?

Legislatures lying down on this issue are a rot in Canada. Ottawa wants mandatory carbon tax implementation across Canada. They say to the provinces: “either implement your own carbon tax, or we’ll tax your populace ourselves.” The only difference: if the province does it, they keep the money; if Ottawa does it, they get the money, and then it just disappears. The taxpayer’s opinion on all this is unheeded. Therefore a provincial carbon tax is necessary as the money will be taken anyway, so best to keep the $$$ close to home (where it can be used to bribe local voters, instead.) This amounts to hostage taking by taxation by Canada, and Stockholm syndrome for the provinces.

I think I see the solution: remove miscreants from Ottawa who propose a tax by legislative gunpoint, and kick out any provincial government that acquiesces. I don’t negotiate with those using taxation in service of an ideology, and I don’t negotiate with those who negotiate with those people, either! Besides, implementing the tax on a provincial level does not oblige Ottawa to not implement a federal carbon tax later.

I expect my provincial government to protect its jurisdiction and its authority, and to tell Ottawa ‘No’ when it tries usurpation by ideology of ignorance. Laying down and acquiescing, burning your economy in effigy, are all unacceptable. If Ottawa does not take the hint, then it’s time to split.

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.

Trolling

Applause, Premier John Horgan. You’ve proven your chops as a big stakes political troll. (He is the current leader of the New Democrat Party (NDP) which forms the British Columbia government. The NDP is socialism/communism-light in Canada.)

john-horgan

The man himself. Nice bridge work.

He’s also proven that the political left is always about chaos. Its game theory strategy is always:

 

Defect to any defection.

Defect-squared to any cooperation.

 

The troll you may ask, is saying the Canadian federal government should intervene to give British Columbia (B.C.) relief from high gas prices. This strikes a nerve that was irritated raw in the early 1980s, and has never rested since.

For non-Canuckophiles, to review: B.C. and Alberta, provinces within Canada, are currently in a fight, regarding the use of B.C.’s coastline to export Alberta oil. Alberta’s economy relies significantly on oil and natural gas, and a substantial part of that is bitumen extracted from oil sands. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta (the “Crown”; it’s a long story) owns about 81% of the oil and gas trapped underground in Alberta. All development is handled by private companies, who pay a royalty for the privilege. Government revenues rely on these royalties. The more oil and gas produced, the more money for the Crown, the more jobs, the more income, the more taxes…you get the picture.

Alberta is big in land, but small in population: less than four million people reside there, with about 35 million total living in Canada. But Alberta’s reserves are gigantic: just Alberta’s reserves (for the whole province, not just the Crown owned portion), were in 2014 the third largest reserves in the world (behind Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, but larger than Iran, Iraq, Russia and the U.S.) This is a lot of oil in a small market. And so, getting oil around the country and for international export is a big issue. Alberta is landlocked, so getting oil to sea involves someone else’s jurisdiction. The best way to do this is by pipeline, and this is where the current fight begins.

Laying Pipe

Pipeline companies have attempted to expand Alberta’s capacity to deliver oil to outside markets. They wanted to change an existing pipeline in eastern Canada, to get oil from Alberta to Québec and the Maritime provinces, and so the Energy East project was proposed. They wanted to get oil from near Edmonton, Alberta, to a loading facility on the B.C.’s coast near Kitimat, and so Enbridge proposed the Northern Gateway pipeline. Access already existed to terminals on the Texas coast of the Gulf of Mexico, and expansion plans were proposed (Keystone XL). Also, an expansion to an existing pipeline (Trans-Mountain) was proposed, which would result in more oil getting to an existing terminal in Burnaby, B.C. for foreign export. All of this sounds great: more Alberta oil sold, more Crown royalties, more income taxes and GST (Canada’s VAT) for Canada. Except, it’s not, because, you know…reasons.

The National Energy Board reviews applications for pipelines in Canada. If they approve an application (often, with conditions), it goes to the Governor-In-Council (GIC) for final approval. The GIC is the Prime Minister of Canada and his cabinet: that’s right, Justin Trudeau and his “’cuz it’s 2015” cabinet. They overruled the previous government’s decision to allow the Northern Gateway pipeline (2014), disallowed it in 2016, and effectively killed the project by banning tanker traffic into Kitimat. One down.

Energy East died a different death. While approved by the GIC, it was killed by the governments of Ontario and Québec, along with a somewhat dubious claim that 180 different First Nations all opposed it, and could veto the project approval under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Last year, the project was abandoned, with one side arguing it was due to political interference, and the other, claiming it was simply an economic choice.

Keystone XL was approved by the NEB back in 2007, but as it was also under U.S. jurisdiction, President Obama put it on indefinite hold. President Trump signed an executive order allowing the project to go ahead in early 2017.

So, Alberta is down 2-1 at this point (with Trump being their only ally.) Trans-Mountain pipeline, an expansion to an existing project, has been approved by the NEB and the GIC. This expansion has faced stiff resistance from protestors, First Nations, and now, the provincial government of B.C., which threatened to take steps to restrict the amount of oil (diluted bitumen, in this case) in the pipeline pending an environmental review, a step which many are calling illegal.

The B.C. NDP don’t have a choice, really. They do not have a majority of seats in the B.C. legislature. This is a problem because a minority government can always be put to a confidence vote in their legislature, and if they lose, their government is dissolved, and either some other party steps in to govern, or they go to election. They know, they used that trick to get into power, forcing the Liberals, who won the most seats in last years provincial election, out of government. The NDP then made a deal with the local Green Party, who had three seats, to form a coalition government which could survive a confidence vote.

But this comes at a price, and that is the current B.C. government must now take a hard stance on any environmental issue to satisfy the NDP voters, and must pander to the Greens as well (this won’t work: see the game theory strategy of the left, above.) This is democracy in Canada for you. The second place party is now held hostage by a party with a miniscule amount of power, and policy on major issues is now beholden to that minority.

No one thinks for a second that a majority of British Columbians are represented in this current quagmire. And with the defect-defect2 (lets call it “d/d2”) game strategy of the left, any acquiescence to the Greens will just lead to further demands. And so, B.C. is now rattling sabres and quite frankly, will block the Trans-Mountain expansion if it can. Ottawa, and Justin Trudeau, rattle off platitudes, seemingly ignorant of B.C.’s outright threats to defy the law and the decisions of the NEB and GIC, but take no steps to resolve the matter. And this puts Rachel Notley, Premier of Alberta, in a bad spot.

Carbon Taxing

See, a while back, Premier Notley (another NDP government leader) put a carbon tax in place in Alberta. She claimed it was to acquire “social license” for pipeline expansions. When Justin Trudeau approved the Trans-Mountain expansion and Energy East (and killed Northern Gateway), he claimed her carbon tax helped to justify the decision. The carbon tax was highly unpopular within Alberta, however. Fast-forward a few years, and with Energy East dead, and Trans-Mountain facing an opposition determined to stop it, people in Alberta are asking: where’s the social license, and our pipelines?

On top of that, Premier Notley now faces an election in a little over a year. Alberta is notoriously a conservative voting province, with the same conservative party ruling from 1971 to 2015. She put an unpopular tax (is there any other kind?) in place in exchange for getting Alberta oil to bigger markets, and got zip for it. She looks weak and naïve, and faces a hostile electorate to boot. (Personally, I don’t think it matters. She would have put the tax in anyway, regardless of pipeline issues. However, she needed to sell it, and so made a deal with a federal government who does not need a single vote from her province to stay in power. And, predictably, it has backfired completely.)

Rachel Notley-1.jpg

Premier Notley

And so, the battle is now waging. B.C. has no choice but to oppose the pipeline bitterly to keep the Greens happy, and Alberta has no choice but to posture and fight so Premier Notley can appear she wants the pipeline to go through. And, in the d/d2 world of the left, it’s only going to get nastier.

(Man, I love watching the left eat itself.[1] You know what will be even funnier, when in five to ten years, when the current batch of leftist politicians in this mess have gone the way of the Weather Underground, and have six and seven figure incomes (with NGOs or private concerns) after wrecking ordinary people’s livelihoods with their antics, while still claiming to “fight the good fight against the 1%.” Never mind the trolling, what about the lulz!?!)

National Energy Troll

So, we arrive, at the troll. Horgan’s allusion to federal government intervention on gasoline pricing is a reference to the National Energy Program (NEP). The NEP was created by Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Canada’s 15th Prime Minister (and in a real life expression of universal irony, father of Justin Trudeau), in order to deal with Canada’s inability to control either oil supply or price in the 1970s. It all started with OAPEC’s embargo on oil sales to several western nations, Canada included, in 1973, as retribution for supporting Israel in the Yom Kippur War. Trudeau was in a bind because Canada was still largely dependent on foreign oil imports. The embargo hurt because it reminded all of Canada that they were beholden to OPEC, because OPEC could fuck with their economy on a whim. It was not that Canada could not get oil during an embargo, but rather that the price was driven through the roof.

Trudeau did make efforts to increase domestic production starting in the mid-70s, going so far as to allow oil and gas development on Canadian Forces Bases. The 1979 oil shock (caused by the Iranian Revolution, which reduced Iran’s oil production by 75%) made it clear: Canada was dependent on oil from abroad, and had zip to say about its price.

So, Pierre Trudeau sort-of nationalized the oil industry in Canada. Some will scream this was Trudeau the Communist who did this, which is wrong. Trudeau’s plan was Socialism (control of the means of production), not Communism (central ownership of the means of production.) His plan was more akin to what the Nazis did in Germany (that’s right, I went there), than what Stalin did in the USSR (except, way fewer thugs.) Petro-Canada was created, a national oil company which would invest in oil development, and the National Energy Program was implemented, which if I understand correctly, required oil producers to sell oil to the government for a price which would never be greater than 85% of the world oil price, and was set much lower to begin with. However, oil purchased abroad would also be sold domestically at this lower price. This was intended to lower fuel prices across Canada for all, but also, to stabilize supply and price. It failed, and ironically, it subsidized foreign oil imports and penalized local producers.

First, when it was fully rolled out on January 1, 1981, world oil prices had begun a steady 20 year decline. Second, no one seems to be able to say whether it was beneficial to Canadians as a whole (gasoline prices went up, not down, while the world oil price fell.) Third, it ruined the Alberta economy and stalled development in the province, and especially in city of Calgary, the white collar center for oil and gas development and investment for Alberta, for about 10 years. Estimates vary from 20 billion to 100 billion dollars lost or taken from the Alberta economy in the half decade or so that it ran. Prime Minister Brian Mulroney ended the program in 1985. Even today, the rhetoric around this issue is so charged and polarized I can’t find a source that’s impartial enough to actually give a good basis to start looking at these issues. 37 years later, people on both sides are still pissed-right-off on this issue. It’s not really important about the details: it remains a highly charged, emotional and divisive issue and even today prompts calls for Alberta’s secession from Canada.

download

I was in Calgary when the NEP was developed and rolled out. I was a child, and did not understand real hatred, born of frustration and helplessness, and why everyone HATED Trudeau. Hatred against the Prime Minister and Ottawa was sharp, visceral, and frightening. There were bumper stickers saying “let those eastern bastards freeze in the dark”, meaning Alberta should just cut-off the supply of oil entirely. There was a joke at that time that Petro-Canada was an acronym for “Pierre Elliot Trudeau Rips-Off Canada.” No one in Calgary laughed: it was a fact. Investment in oil and gas disappeared, people were laid-off in swaths, people lost houses (or quitclaimed them for a $1; mortgage interest rates were in double-digits at that time), and lost their fortunes and retirements. I remember my father having to move over 700 km away to find work, which precipitated the end of his marriage and my family. There are all kinds of stories like mine abound in Calgary and in Alberta writ large. We don’t forget the man who caused it and we take note of his progeny.

298d67cd8b23a39d927a480252ee713b

And this is why Premier Horgan’s reference to federal government relief on the price of gas is the ultimate form of troll: bring back the NEP is his allusion. If he was looking to make a significant part of Alberta react unfavourably, to conjure up past grievances, and to open old wounds while pouring (100% organic, orca friendly) sea salt in them, he succeeded. He’s now a gold-star leftist: he’s done the endless defect chain against Notley, taking a pot-shot at Albertans. It was a low blow, dealt out by an amateur, too childish and stupid to see some things must let lie, and that one should not place yourself and your province in subservience to a political party which knows only chaos and defection.

Applause Premier Horgan, applause.

[1] Oops, sorry, I meant “People, I love watching the left eat itself.”

On Weakness

burnflag

G20 Protestors, Vancouver, B.C., July 4, 2010. Photo: Stephen Hui.

I see a great deal of discord in western European and North American societies. Canada is leading the way. Something is wrong. There is weakness down to the core. Others are sensing this, and testing to see what they can get away with.

Putin is accused of being brazen enough to have tried to assassinate an enemy on U.K. soil, and when retribution follows, another assassination, right before he faces re-election as President, which he wins. I suggest someone thinks they can get away with this, and Putin is at least complicit because he thinks there will be few consequences. Further, some of his populace sees him as a strong leader, because they sense the U.S., its vassal states, and its sphere of influence are weak, and Putin is exercising power in their midst while they are vulnerable.

The latest news shows something is up:

China surpasses U.S. in Supercomputing.

China allows Xi Jinping to become permanent President of their Republic by removing term limits.

Assassinations are attempted on two former Russian double agents on U.K. soil. Putin then wins another term as President, all while hiring mercenaries to try to weaken the U.S. in Syria. Theresa May expels Russian diplomats as a punitive measure…Putin’s response: “meh, глупый английский.”

Russia develops new nuclear weapons.

These are real attempts with some progress in shoring up power. And these steps will have worldwide repercussions in the years to come. Meanwhile, in progressiveland…

Canada’s Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, on state business in India, dresses full Bollywood, dines with a man convicted of attempted murder of an Indian Minister, then accuses India of a conspiracy to set the whole thing up just to embarrass him. He discusses the scientific method (it’s just “baby cries, baby gets milk”) with Bill Nye, passes a federal budget using ‘Gender Based Analysis’ (which means he will now take selfies with equal numbers of men and women), then fucks off to Florida on vacation (wasn’t India a vacation? But its all good ‘cuz he cleared it with the Ethics Commissioner.)

He did condemn the attacks on the former Russian spies in the U.K. This coming from the same guy weeping at the loss of Fidel Castro while admiring the Chinese Communist regime because, by Great Leap Forward, “they can turn on a dime” to make changes to their economy. A particularly grand turn-on-a-dime, I might add, as the Communist Party had to get around 18 to 55 million dead bodies in a single bound. I guess what Stalin was attributed to have said about tragedies versus statistics appeals to Le Dauphin. But I digress…

Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer of discontent by this sun of Mount Royal

Meanwhile, Canada’s provinces of British Columbia and Alberta are in a fight because they think Justin Le Premier can be overruled on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion approval, something he and his ‘cuz muh 2015’ cabinet has the legal final word on. This is akin to the Lords or the Dukes ignoring the edicts of the King.

British Columbia (the perfidious) defies him, because Canada is so weak that the positive consequences in voter support outweigh whatever bad may come. They are now removing barriers to allow export by sea of liquefied natural gas produced within B.C., while blocking oil from Alberta from getting to their ports. Alberta prepares to fight back with punitive measures because they have no faith Ottawa actually has any conviction to enforce its own decisions externally, much less internally. Both are right.

Canada is weak against Iran (who has killed and imprisoned Canadian citizens with nary a peep from Ottawa), weak against China (who told Trudeau to pound sand on human rights and sent him packing), weak against the U.S. (where insistence on gender equality being included in a revised North American Free Trade Agreement went over like a World Trade Center joke on September 11th) weak on even the most straight forward diplomatic pleasantries (aforementioned India visit, mostly ignored by the host), weak in front if the entire Pacific Rim (simply unable to keep Trudeau’s schedule straight during Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations); weak, caving in utterly in the face of a $20 million dollar law suit by former Al-Qaeda member Omar Khadr (settling for $10.5 million, “cuz muh human rights” – of the grenade thrower of course, not his victims); and then telling a Canadian veteran who fought and lost a leg against Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan that anything more than token compensation for his sacrifice was more than Canada could give, right now.

My remonstration has a purpose: where you demonstrate you are weak, have no spine, take nothing seriously or demonstrate you have no principles which you’ll stick to where even a minimal amount of discomfort is involved, you invite others to ignore you, surpass you (while you are distracted by waaaay more important issues like the “wage gap”), if not outright attack you. British Columbia is doing it internally in Canada, which is akin to what Putin is doing externally with the U.K. They see weakness, and they exploit it. Putin benefits from some assassination attempts, B.C. kills billions of dollars in oil sales to garner votes (and prevent the fall of their government, which relies on support from the local Green Party.) Heaven help Canada if Putin realizes we’re a good place to play power games, although our proximity to the U.S. hopefully makes us unappetizing to predators.

What is making us weak? I suggest it is our current political arrangement of progressive statism which never reflected reality.

First, while most people go around unconscious of the assumptions, prejudices and underlying philosophy of the state, society and culture they live under, nonetheless, every country has these things. These underpinnings determine not only how problems might be solved, they determine what is ‘a problem.’ Everything not falling into what is identified or solvable under these paradigms is usually ignored. It is possible that how the Canadian state is structured causes it to have blind spots on certain problems. By this, I mean the society and government do not respond to these problems because they simply lie beyond the ability of the system to identify. This is not a case of burying your head in the sand (which we otherwise do in spades.) You simply cannot see it at all. I think such blind spots do exist, and problems may be lurking in them. However, I don’t think it’s the issue with current weakness in Canada.

Rather, with Canada, our current societal and governmental organization will not deal with certain problems realistically because they will not allow deviations from an orthodoxy, will not allow discussion of opinions contrary to the orthodoxy, and will vigorously attempt to supress facts and knowledge which threaten that orthodoxy. The current ‘Orthodoxy’ in Canada looks something like this:

 

English have always been at war with French

Men have always been at war with women

Europeans have always been at war with aboriginals

Heterosexuals have always been at war with non-heterosexuals

 “Rich” have always been at war with “poor”

Parents have always been at war with their children

Rationality has always been at war with Religion

 

Diversity is Strength

Freedom is Taxation

Self-Reliance is Dependence

Success is Victimization

Community is Self

Equality is Character

 

There was no Prime Minister before Pierre Elliot Trudeau

Big Brother is People are watching you

 

The only true statement is the last. And in Canada, you are not allowed to even suggest anything else is true but the above. And this makes for big blind spots, which means Canada cannot solve problems, because the facts underlying those problems, and the possible solutions, cannot be uttered or considered without being railed against and labelled as ‘unorthodoxy’. This makes us weak.

In Canada there is a minority in power which requires that the Orthodoxy must be true for the nation, for which Justin Trudeau is virtue signalling his way to becoming Pope (practicing the dog-whistles of the Cathedral.) However, it is not truth, it is an attempt to hammer rounded society into the square holes of the Orthodoxy. “The Orthodoxy is the truth. But Canada is not actually like that. Solution: force Canada to fit the Orthodoxy. Thanks Procrustes!”

The current Liberal government therefore finds itself trying to force society into a mold it cannot fit into, requiring the subjugation of all our peoples, our natures, and all that made us strong and virtuous, in service of an ideology. Our citizens sense this problem and are responding in one of two ways: double-down on Orthodoxy, or denounce it and try to find something better. (I find those dependent on government funding tend to double-down, and outnumber the denouncers. It’s inevitable, given how many in Canada have one or more levels of government funding as their primary source of income. I think people make a lot of sunk-cost errors too: when you pay 40%-50% of your income to governments, you cannot admit it’s a bad investment, so you justify it any way you can.)

The current battles in our society highlight this conflict. We are having very visible and divisive disagreements everyday on issues like race, religion, gender relations, immigration, taxation, economics, foreign affairs, education, health care and government regulation. Such discourse is always present, but lately, it has gone beyond discourteous, subjective, and inflammatory, to be outright insular, hostile and in the case of university campuses, the Orthodoxy is enforced with violence.

The tenets of the statist socialist Orthodoxy were never intended to deal with reality, but rather, were idealistic visions of what someone thought we should be forced to accept as the truth. To sell this, they painted a picture of reality which said such a vision was possible and also necessary (to deal with the Orthodoxy’s identified states of perpetual war.) It was never true.

Reality and what is possible in reality, and the Orthodoxy, have been incongruous and creating tension for over 50 years, and its starting to boil over, as reality can no longer be ignored or dismissed. This internal conflict signals to the rest of the world that we are weak. Those with ambitions and convictions feel no need to respect, negotiate or compromise with us when our own house is in chaos.