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

Advertisements

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.