Cantandum in Ezkhaton 04/21/19

Francois Guillot / AFP / Getty Images

Der Frühling blutet in Paris.”

Notre Dame de paris brûle! C’est tres tragique! Je crains que ce soit un mauvais augure. PA blog commente ici. Clarissa, avec pourquoi elle ne peut past être remplacée. Z Man: qu’est-ce qui vient ensuite. Malcolm, avec sa perspective. L’argument de l’inimitié de nos ennemis, par l’Orthosphère. Resentement.

51RUez6PxCL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_

Z Man on the coming US Civil War II. His quick review of Duton and Woodley’s At Our Wits End, on declining intelligence in the west. On the Lie Machine and its motives. He wonders if a lack of imagination is a sign of the times. Also, his weekly podcast, on Letters to Z Man.

The Orthosphere begins the week with an overview of the works of Joseph de Maistre: Enlightenment and Sacrifice. Also, Immigrants Are Assimilating. Berdyaev continued: Maximal Freedom Means Maximal Responsibility. A Westerner reads the Koran (Second Surah). All are great. RTWTs.

Such immigrant assimilation is something I have noticed up here in Albertastan. A small number of immigrants are showing up in court challenging all kinds of laws and demanding privileges, and when their demands are not met, it be raycis! They accuse the judge, the clerks, the bailiffs, the lawyers, and everyone else in the room of being racist. If there is a law that stops them from doing what they want, the law is racist. They gladly trot out the local Human Rights Code and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and claim a breach. And when that does not work, they say those rules are racist also. It’s racist turtles all the way down.

It’s laughable, as they seem to almost believe the word “racist” is magic that trumps all other laws and precedents. I wonder where they got that from? Mr. Watson gets it right: they watch the dominant progressive culture in the media, and they assume the words are magic, because otherwise, how else could such a word have any power?

For a particularly egregious abuser, see this decision on Mr. Abe Olumide, who filed suit in every single province, a mari usque ad mare, to have election laws struck down as racist to try and force a political party to let him run as their candidate. I note that Justice Thomas was rumoured to be undergoing chemotherapy at the time he wrote this, so perhaps that explains his disposition. Nonetheless, it’s nice to see someone say, indirectly, “I’m sick and tired of your bullshit.”

GA Blog with more wisdom on the way words work: Accessing the Ostensive within the Declarative.

Faith Goldy with reasons why we need a black Pope.

PA Blog on the song Libertà.

American Sun on why racial intelligence matters. On a different kind of blacksploitation. For the long weekend, Five Friday Reads.

Titania McGrath – SJW Supreme! The Twitter feed is here.

Evolutionist X on why women have breasts. Her summary of a new paper on the Jomon people of Japan.

Malcolm on the latest in what’s too white: Library Whiteness. Audacious Epigone on Whiteness.

Mr. Briggs begins the week with the ongoing Summary Against Modern Thought. On statistics and the non-merits of randomization. What is white supremacy? Also, a great post against Scientism. To be inclusive in the workplace, exclude Christians. His fine work of fiction:Realistic Female Hero Novel.

He also mentions the annual Bulwer Lytton Fiction Contest. Do it for the lulz!

VDH asks a question: What are the limits of illegal immigration? It’s a bit troubling, given it appears the US does not know how many it already has.

Anatoly Karlin: HBD Bloggers are Autists.

I’m out of contact for Easter so this week is a short one. I’ll cover any articles missed next week.

c3b63421-241d-42c0-a885-d9044fdc345d

Happy Easter everyone. The Saviour will rise, and the world will be redeemed and renewed.

Keep on reactin.

Señor Blanco.

Advertisements

Cantandum in Ezkhaton 04/14/19

Applause! Mr. Tucker on leftist immigration hypocrisy:

William Briggs begins the week with Summary Against Modern Thought. Some clarity for Mr. Buttigieg: What exactly has God made? Notes on the beliefs of the intellectual dark web. Intellectual maybe…but certainly not dark, or even dissenting. They’re smart people, but in the face of the lunacy of Progressives, they are calling for a time out. They seem to be thinking that things will go back to normal if everyone calms down. I don’t think that’s coming anytime soon. On woke Teacher/Student evaluations. He asks and answers the question: Why Government & Corporations Grow Bigger? (Spoiler: positive feedback loop, caused by regulation.) A request: please share diversity statements with him.

The Orthosphere on the Primacy of Freedom, in part as an alternate to nihilism. A clarification of high art and its purpose. On Berdyaev: Why God and Personality Must Be the Highest Ideal. Also, From Judgement You Should Not Refrain. I liked this part:

For a man who is perfectly non-judgmental must also be perfectly apathetic. He will have anesthetized his will, and will therefore look upon every eventuality with perfect equanimity and indifference. If a scapegoating mob wishes to stone an adulteress, who is he to judge them? And if this scapegoating mob should turn and brandish its stones in his face, the non-judgmental man can only shrug, for he cannot say that an ignominious and painful death is less desirable than other alternative.

But from judgment you should not refrain. Your Christian duty is to rectify your will, not anesthetize it. Your duty is to judge justly, to temper your judgments with mercy, and to judge your neighbor only after you have judged yourself.

 

4HFh2m5

Gratuitous Finnish Girl Picture

Z Man blog finishes his trip to Finland, and The Journey Home. An analysis of the recent Congressional hearings on White Supremacy. On HBD: A New Ape in the Tree. His weekly podcast: April Grab Bag.

Evolutionist X with Trump, Mueller and concerns. Also, can one reliably distinguish low IQ and insanity (read the comments too). A comment on why desegregation is a bad idea.

Setting the Record Straight with all the Game Advice you’ll ever need.

Alf gives some advice on how to be happy.

Throne, Altar, Liberty looks at the Liberal Party of Canada’s troubles. Schadenfreude results:

The Liberal Party of Canada has, over the years, made itself odious to all sorts of Canadians but most consistently to two distinct groups who despise them for very different reasons. The old Tories of the kind frequently but erroneously called “Red,” (1) i.e., the ones who prize Canada’s British and Loyalist history, traditions, and heritage, her constitutional monarchy, Westminster parliamentary system of government, and Common Law, her ongoing ties to the British Commonwealth and who associate all of this with an older, more organic, more rooted, vision of society than modern, individualistic, commercialism see the Liberals, quite correctly, as a party of rootless, modernizers who can conceive of value in no terms other than those of a price tag and whose goal is to sell out the Dominion and everything for which she once stood to Yankee capitalism for a quick buck. On the other hand, the rugged, rural, inhabitants of the prairie provinces of the Canadian West whom the Liberals and their academic and media fellow travelers dismiss with “redneck” and other, worse, epithets, have long loathed the Grits [old name for Liberals] as being a party of totalitarian socialists who a) tax them to death, b) ignore, or worse, aggravate, their economic difficulties, and c) display the same arrogant contempt towards them that the Obama/Clinton Democrats display towards middle and working class red state Americans. Both of these negative views of the Liberals are entirely valid. (2) Someone like myself, who has belonged to both groups simultaneously for all of his life – a Redneck Tory, would be one way of putting it, I suppose – has particularly good reason to look upon the Liberal Party with utter abhorrence.

Gerry falls a bit short. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, a Liberal, oversaw the creation of Alberta and Saskatchewan from territory the Canadian government already held. He and his fellow Liberals have treated AB and SK as colonies ever since. And engage in plunder and rapine when it suits their ends. We always do better when ignored by Ottawa.

Audacious Epigone on Guess Who Is Interested in White Supremacy?

Filed under “then they came for the for the milquetoast”, Sir Roger Scruton gets sacked as Chair of the Building Beautiful Architecture Commission. He’s one of the few who might be called an actual conservative, but he’s also mostly harmless. His removal shows the fist of progressivism tightening in the UK.

12fe2ccb8b622b131ec94132f0150db8

American Sun on racial IQ differences. Also, on Joseph Biden (it’s brilliant). The false premise under the Benedict option: parallel polis. Ending the week: Five Friday Reads, with extra Lovecraft.

The Big Scene is the Anthropological Basis for Anarchist Ontology, on GA Blog.

Malcolm on creating white nationalism: How to Start a Fire. Also, on selective censorship: Slavery, Abortion, Heresy. Plus, his thoughts on the seasons.

Clarissa on Trump’s Betrayal.

Al fin on Murder Near and Far.

PA Blog with a link to Murdoch Murdoch’s latest: What do you want to be when you grow up? Plus, his thoughts on Songs About the City at Night.

The AntiGnostic asks Why Are We Still In Afghanistan?

Lastly, from Mr. Briggs, a particularly terrifying This Week In Doom – Big Sister’s Hate List Edition.

I’m wondering how long before the sex-reassignment of children is revealed to be based on, well…nothing good. Further, some parents mentioned in the news seem to be finding having a transgender child fashionable.

What are the ‘reassigned’ kids going to do when it turns out they were sold lies? Now, these kids are called “regretters”, because, you know, mutilating them is perfectly normal, so they’re not victims, but simply unhappy with their decision.

In a common law country like Canada, a child is presumed not to have capacity to enter into a contract, and unable to consent to sex before a certain age. A child cannot make an informed decision to change their sex. It appears they are being led down this path by deluded parents and experts.

Future peoples will look back at this era, and in spite of our technology they will say that we were spiraling downward towards savagery, committed to a doomsday cult, sacrificing our children in more and more sadistic ways, all to status-signal. “They had the best lives of any humans that had ever existed”, they will say, “but they wasted it all through some collective derangement.” I understand that a civilization in decline is likely to keep on declining until it is done, in the same ways all the others before it did. But I bet we could at least get a Marcus Aurelius type respite going for several dozen years.

Keep on reactin’

Señor Blanco

Cantandum in Ezkhaton 03/31/19

bronze-age-mindset

Bronze Age Pervert makes a guest appearance at American Sun: Old and New Paganism. RTWT. Also, interesting thoughts on UBI and Amazon dorms. Always an excellent way to end the week: Five Friday Reads. Further, the real estate woes of Boomers.

Jussie Smollet > SNC Lavalin – prosecutors let him off the hook. Steve Sailer: Jussie Smollet walks. Some perps are more equal than others. Although, I’ll offer this translation of Leftese: “getting on with my/his/her life” means “I/he/she would really like to avoid any icky consequences.” Second City Cop asks: Who Benefits? Audacious Epigone on Candace Owen’s response.

Z-Man on the sources of the decline of social trust. To quote:

In the 1980’s, people generally thought most Democrats wanted to improve the lives of the working class and most Republicans wanted to protect the middle class. The media, while biased, had lots of people trying hard to get the facts to the public. Big business may have been motivated by greed, but most people in business were decent people. People who doubted everything were conspiracy nuts, who wore aluminum foil hats. 1980’s man would be astonished to see that only total fools trust anything in the public domain.

I remember those days…what the hell happened? Were we able to discuss things publicly without filtering it through ideology? Or has nothing changed, and the Internet has just shown us all how very deluded we are?

GA Blog with the Central Imaginary…on the concept of this central authority who should fix everything.

Mr. Briggs commences with his weekly Summary Against Modern Thought. Also, on the incoherence of the NYT’s ‘God is incoherent’ argument. How to confirm theories non-empirically. Followed up by an argument against the multiverse. A way to cure the higher education blues: Independent Ratings of University Degrees. Plus, some much needed good news: The Spirit World Is Alive and Well and Surrounds Us. He finishes the week with This Week In Doom – Fly the Woke Skies Edition.

Nightsongs, Part 2 of 2 from PA Blog. Also, a great post about being tested – and readiness for battle.

8770f465c98f90ed126a3fd1fc07bd10

Obligatory CUTE Asian girl picture. That’s right, I went there.

Steve Sailer asks us all to stop saying Asian girls are cute! Also, his take on the SPLC’s recent issues.

Malcolm also presents words as living fossils. Followed up by Racist Thing #107, which I think makes mayonnaise a microaggression.

Jim analyzes a Chinese TV show.

Alf on the difficulties of starting a new religion. Also, thoughts on what we offer: the RedWhite Pill.

Z-Man on the fountain of conspiracy theories from the Left. His podcast for the week — a grab bag. Also, why dissident political movements are failing. An excellent case for bringing back the hangman. Also, on how to dissent: Welcome to the Resistance.

Evolutionist X starts with a quick note on jobs and education. Onto a discussion, What Happens To a Nation Defeated, in particular, the Comanches. Also, society and how our perception of it has changed in What is a Society?

The Orthosphere on that Fellaheen Feeling, a grand disregard for the grandeur or decadance of civilization.

Clarissa…filed under ‘hmmm’.

On Estonian efforts to put AI in their legal system. I’d advise against that, given those colluding Russians. Oh, wait…

Lastly, Malcolm on the Mueller Report, and Andrew McCarthy’s reactions, with a follow up. No surprises for me, either in the report or the Dem/Left reaction. They’ve got way too much invested in that hoax to just let it go. Clarissa’s thoughts on the matter. Lord Black of Crossharbour offers his take, and also chides Canada for buying in. Newfoundland’s Rex Murphy opines with outrage. Z-Man on the end of the cult of Russia-Trump collusion. Al Fin on Spygate, underlying the hoax. Is this Schadenfreude, a victory march, or both:

Keep on reactin’

Señor Blanco.

Cantandum in Ezkhaton 02/24/19

Charter

I begin with a rant on goings on in Canuckistan. Quillette posted an article by Murray Klippenstein on…social justice warriors hijacking the Law Society of Ontario! They now require every licensed member to adopt a written statement that he or she must promote equality, diversity and inclusion as part of their law practice. Klippenstein is perturbed, and you should listen, given he is a self-proclaimed progressive litigator, strong advocate for equality, and a descendant of a persecuted group, Mennonites. He is clearly all kinds of woke. This quote catches my ire:

Without having the nerve to say so directly, the Law Society is telling us that there are, in effect, too many white Jewish lawyers — for there is no single group that has had more success, on a per capita basis, in gaining representation in the Ontario legal market.

I quit the Ontario Law Society several years back, and when I heard about their diversity initiatives, I felt like I might have dodged a bullet. Mr. Klippenstein, however, has made a career based on ‘human rights’ and helping ‘disadvantaged people’. The moment Klippenstein figures out the Overton window moved and he is no longer a beneficiary from ‘equality and diversity’, he starts complaining. But since his progressive street cred is clearly established, this should be no surprise to him.

Under the progressive rubric, you are either oppressing or oppressed, and since Mr. Klippenstein is successful, guess which one they see him as? Playing the anti-Semitic card will get him nowhere. And his service for First Nations, indigenous peoples, protesters, or other disadvantaged people will count for naught. It’s always ‘defect-defect’ on the left after all, and “what have you done for me lately?” is measured in Planck time.

‘Multiculturalism’, ‘human rights’, ‘equality’, and ‘disadvantaged individuals or groups’ are all in the Charter, parts of which I am no fan of. The business of using victim status to give certain groups preferred treatment has been on the books since 1982. Social justice ideologues have not hijacked a legal regulator. Rather, this is the system working as designed (but perhaps not as intended, although consider who was behind it). The scope of disadvantaged groups moves more left, more progressive, and more to the fringes every year. Klippenstein’s complaints are because he is no longer part of that group. Ah, Schadenfreude.
What Else Did I Spy With My Reactionary Eye?

Filed under ‘no surprise’: MAGA attack on Jussie Smollett a suspected orchestrated hoax. He denies it. Malcolm opines on such hoaxes generally.

Filed under ‘Surprise!’: Jussie gets arrested! Malcolm on where the lines are drawn. Clarissa has similar thoughts, and observes his attackers were black. Audacious Epigone comments on the dissonance and projection involved. Heartiste’s thoughts with a gathering of the finest memes.

Speaking of hoaxes, coming in as another refuted hoax on Russia: Anatoly Karlin on Russia’s alleged “lemon problem”. Clarissa comments, and gives a prescription to cure the underlying mental condition.

The Orthosphere on the origins of “deadbeats and bums”.

Alf: All Women are Like That. Praise Jim.

PA Blogs on pro-natalism in Europe.

The Sydney Trads post a presentation given by Ted Sadler on the Suicide of the West by uni-state.

William Briggs notes some differences between translations of Frédéric Martel’s book on the Catholic church. A revealing post on the Afterlife Industry. His Summary Against Modern Thought. A guest post by the Cranky Professor: The problem of a material bearer of consciousness. Trump and the effort to decriminalize homosexuality globally; an example of how no matter what you do, they’ll never love you. (Proof.) Plus, a fun takedown of Woke Science: Implicit Bias Test. This Week in Doom: No More Female Mothers Edition, with this insight:

Here is where all good libertarians conservatives should listen. Progressives won’t grasp this, but there is hope libertarians and conservatives will understand. It is not that those of us on the Traditional right care so much about what some lunatic woman LARPs as, or whether two man want to bugger each into anal prolapses, or whatever. We do care but aren’t interested in launching patrols. What we do not want is to be required to say these things are good. We want to be able to speak of Reality without penalty.

Two men claim to be married to each other, which is an impossibility, and we want to be able to say so, whereas everybody on the left, starting with conservatives, would require that we tell the lie. A culture built on lies, and one that through every major institution, and not just the government, enforces and insists on the lies must devolve further and further into tyranny and madness. Reality eventually will intrude, as it must. Yet when the end comes, which it must, it won’t be pleasant.

page_1_thumb_large

Via Clarissa and American Sun, an article on the real purpose of education, which appears to be to create an actual idiocracy. I just started listening to the audiobook version of Fiery Angel by Michael Walsh, in which he notes a similar trend in the arts in western culture. Aidan Maclear takes note of the resulting cultural decline, and asks: what may replace it? Kill to Party in a similar vein, on popular culture and dating.

Also, Global WarmingTM has now caused soybean crops to increase in Canada. I ASSURE YOU I was not pressured in any way by the Prime Minister’s Office to make that statement!

On the HBD front: AK on northern Europe’s late developments as arguments against race differences in IQ.

VDH on the Strange Paradoxes of Progressivism. Which seem no longer strange, for two reasons: we’ve been exposed to them for a long time, so they don’t surprise, and, because cognitive dissonance seems to be a badge of honour amongst the progressives, as Heartiste opines. (Going as far as perhaps Orwell thought they might.) I think such dissonance is unavoidable, given progressives have been peddling the same ideologies and policies for over fifty years which have produced very little of what was promised. Think Affirmative Action.

American Sun begins the week with Primary Loyalties and Their Importance. Raising an eye: Part I of Subsumed into the Zeitgeist. Why modern Christians might be better off reading Bronze Age Pervert than Aquinas. Finishing the week: Five Friday Reads.

Evolutionist X discusses Phase Change and Revolutions, and why regime change is rare, but inescapable once it commences. Her non-spoiler movie review of Battle Angel Alita. The spoiler laden review here.

A glimpse into the Cathedral, from one of its outcasts. It’s long, but RTWT. A sample:

I no longer profess and therefore no longer assume the burden of professorial expectations. No more civility or nuance or dispassion or objectivity or whatever term they’re using these days to impel obedience. It’s as close to freedom as a prole can get in this self-deluded country, where the government legislates on behalf of the private sector and the private sector obliterates dissent on behalf of the government.

I wanted good work, honest work, the kind in mythologies of industriousness and humility, where humans with denim overalls deposit saline piety into the earth and die for rustic ideals of personal valor. I dreamed of coffee and tea and cassava raining down on the countryside. But I settled for health insurance. Like any person disavowed of reverence, I finally recognized the need to disappear into the system that destroyed me.

PA Blog on The Last Resort and the effects of geographic mobility.

e142822df5cc4c19e859a6f30e6b290a.1000x1000x1

Some other perspectives from times past:

They said that a man leaves much when he leaves his own country. They said that it was no accident of circumstance that a man be born in a certain country and not some other and they said that the weathers and seasons that form a land form also the inner fortunes of men in their generations and are passed on to their children and are not so easily come by otherwise.

Cormac McCarthy, All the Pretty Horses

CaptureKipling

The Stranger

Canadian
The Stranger within my gate,
He may be true or kind,
But he does not talk my talk–
I cannot feel his mind.
I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
But not the soul behind.

The men of my own stock,
They may do ill or well,
But they tell the lies I am wanted to,
They are used to the lies I tell;
And we do not need interpreters
When we go to buy or sell.

The Stranger within my gates,
He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control–
What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
Shall repossess his blood.

The men of my own stock,
Bitter bad they may be,
But, at least, they hear the things I hear,
And see the things I see;
And whatever I think of them and their likes
They think of the likes of me.

This was my father’s belief
And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf–
And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children’s teeth are set on edge
By bitter bread and wine.

Rudyard Kipling

Keep on reactin’!

Señor Blanco

Cantandum in Ezkhaton 02/17/19

I guess one person can make a difference. But most of the time, they probably shouldn’t.

Marge Simpson

giphy

Malcolm posts a warning on the Green New Deal (GND). It is a plan to dekulak the country get the US off fossil fuels and nuclear in ten years, by directing 40%-50% of GNP to a variety of green-clean energy initiatives. All to prevent Climate ChangeTM, and end racism, sexism and poverty.

It is madness. It’s New Deal Redux, with language Lenin would have loved. I seem to remember Moldbug saying something about the New Deal being the start of America’s brand of Communism.

Well, look at it this way, the New Deal ran for many years before World War II actually mobilized the nation under a common cause, so maybe the GND will have a similar end. Or, just as likely, it could push the US closer to parity…with Venezuela. Tucker Carlson has some fun with an AOC advisor on the matter…

NR takes several shots in Sandy’s War here. It closes with:

And so we have the grand game of make-believe and moral dress-up, in which Field Marshal Sandy rallies her troops on Twitter in the service of a half-organized bouquet of slogans and prejudices that no mentally normal adult — and there are still a few of those around — takes quite seriously. The purported goal of the great national deployment isn’t the point — the deployment itself is. It is an excuse for a great deal of noise and running in circles and excitation and displays of Very High Moral Seriousness that is its own reason for being. Sandy’s war is not a struggle over the future of Earth — it is only a struggle over the future of Sandy, and all the other Sandys out there in the great vast wilds of America, waiting tables at TGI Friday’s or grinding away in the obscurity of some master’s program in women’s studies, sure that however things were supposed to turn out, they weren’t supposed to turn out like this, a mess of loneliness and pointlessness, all dressed up for battle with nowhere to go and no comfort but Netflix and Facebook and Twitter, little fixes of dopamine just strong enough and frequent enough to keep the addicts upright and sedated enough that they do not begin asking the really difficult questions and demanding answers.

It’s not that this kind of thing has ever backfired on a smaller scale, like in the USA, here or in Canada, here. Clarissa speaks more generally here and here.

And onto what caught my eye

The NeoCiceronian Times on the inevitable tragedy of treating people as common property.

Anatoly Karlin on how the Irish experience refutes the Convergence Hypothesis.

Alf on Satan as a troll. A sample:

This leads us to conclude that those who do say we are evil, you know, the type of people who constantly drone on about ‘uhhh we’re destroying the planet ohmygod we are a virus on mother nature when will our tyranny end’ are themselves evil. They deny us our purpose and they lie to us that we are evil for being who we are. Nonsense. If you believe we are evil just for who we are, be consistent and commit suicide.

Audacious Epigpone on the willingness to use violence to achieve political ends. You’ll never guess who finds it more acceptable.

American Sun was prodigious as usual. It begins with an essay when the revolution actually starts. It reminds me of Bertrand de Jouvenel’s thoughts on resistance to absolutism:

It is always utterly impossible to build an aggressive Power with aristocrats. Care for family interests, class solidarity, educational influences, all combine to dissuade them from handing over to the state the independence and fortunes of their fellows.

… …

Resistance is, therefore, the business of aristocracies.

Also from American Sun, on the global war on terror and a sign of the fall. The state of art in the 21st Cenutry. To close the week off, Nick’s Five Friday reads.

Palladium talks about the political problems of centralized social media, with a nod to Urbit, the other work by Mencius Moldbug.

Discovered a new blog this week: Clarissa’s Blog. She has some concerning statistics about teenagers today. It seems they are no longer doing any of the teen activities that prepared my generation (“X”) for leaping into adulthood. No dances or dates, no athletics for fun, no clubs, no hanging out at the mall, no movies, not even the nerdy / geeky / bookwormy but nonetheless social stuff I did. Rather, they are stuck in orbit around their social media and their parents. Her posts are short: see one, two, three, four, five, six and seven.

The Orthosphere with a few articles applying Confucius’ first step to wisdom: How enriching is the progressive experiment?; plus, thoughts on bromides and the origin of ‘bunkum’. Further, why is red-baiting verboten?

Evolutionist X had a good week. She discusses infanticide and cannibalism in E.O. Wilson’s Sociobiology. Also, a quick refutation of the misleading use of GDP, in Deutschland and generally. Also her comments on a quirky paper about human sacrifice as a way to protect property rights.

Mr. Briggs with the good news: You are not an illusion. A frank discussion about what transgenderism really means. His weekly Summary Against Modern Thought. A review of the Death of New Atheism. Also…horrorterror!!! Physics is the least diverse science! (But please, do note Ken’s comment to this article, as he comments after reading the impugned study.) Plus, The Week in Doom – Opioid Marketing Edition.

Aidan MacLear on the need for patriarchy.

Jim on defunding the left, including a nod to Canada’s own Faith Goldy.

20190301

“Another face for punching!” – random progressive.

Esquire magazine ran an article on the life of a white teenage cis-gendered male…to show how privileged he is, of course. I did not read (because I’m sick of the perpetual disguise of understanding and tolerance), but I note this commentary by ramzpaul. Esquire’s tagline is “Build a Life That Matters”, but their articles in the subheadings are all salacious gossip. I wonder if the editors feel any dissonance.

PA with an example of why there is no magic dirt anywhere.

A particularly good podcast on Hindu Nationalism, by the BrownPundits.

Finally, in Canuckistan, a controversy exploded over SNC Lavalin and their request to pay a voluntary fine instead of being criminally prosecuted for having allegedly paid bribes to do business in Libya. The option to do so was enacted into Canada’s Criminal Code, buried in over 500 pages of a budget bill, by the Liberals last year. Allegedly, SNC bribed Libyan officials, but I suspect it was baksheesh, which from what folks who have done business in Libya tell me was a normal part of business, and maybe not a bribe.

liberal-cabinet-20151104

Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould in better times: “Baby, where did our love go?”

The Prime Minister’s office allegedly pressed the Minister of Justice, Jody Wilson-Raybould (a lady and First Nation member) to accept SNC’s offer for a remediation deal instead of a criminal prosecution. She allegedly refused, which resulted in her demotion to Minister of Veteran Affairs, and after Trudeau shockingly tried to mansplain the situation, she resigned from cabinet. The different viewpoints on the morass are best summarized by Newfoundland’s Rex Murphy, and Lord Black of Crossharbour. Trudeau has denied any wrongdoing, and Wilson-Raybould has said nothing, as she is very likely bound by Solicitor-Client privilege (which our petit Dauphin could waive, to let the truth out, but he knows he gains nothing by doing so.)

Justin Trudeau has typically been able to charm the media, but with this scandal (which is nominal at best), the Canadian MSM seems to be out for his blood. Mr. Murphy’s article points to the cause: the facade of being the champion of First Nations and women’s rights was shown to be false, if not deceitful, and only for the purposes of political advancement.

Why this is news is beyond me. Since [the current year] he has done nothing to improve the lives of women or First Nations, and he has been revealed as a cynic who used the Cathedral’s OrthodoxyTM to win himself political power. This may be a turning point, as the MSM is now making more money as his detractor than his cheerleader.

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

The Semantic Game

Of minor note, there is a controversy in Alberta over Catholic Schools and their practice of asking Catholic teachers to sign ‘Catholicity’ Agreements as a condition of employment. The concern being that some LGBTQ teachers have expressed concerns that their employment may not be secure.[1] (Never mind that a religious school firing someone on the basis of sexual orientation was ruled illegal over 20 years ago.) Alberta Catholic schools insist they need to hire Catholic teachers. A “Catholic lifestyle” is a necessary and reasonable expectation, says the Catholic Schools, otherwise Catholic School’s existence is meaningless.*

This is a fine way to have a semantic battle, which you eventually will lose.

Some advice: do not play this semantic game. Referring to your religion as a “lifestyle”, as “Catholicity”, is playing the semantic game of the progressives. I get that you are trying to downplay any signs of oppression or intolerance, but softening your language looks like you are subordinating your faith in order to satisfy the Left. The Left’s strategy is always defect-defect, your capitulation is seen as weakness, and they will demand more, not leave you alone.

The Catholic faith is fundamental, being a connection to a higher power, providing moral guidance, and a close community. That’s not a ‘lifestyle’.  They should say so.

Señor Blanco

 

*This is a problem because Alberta (and Saskatchewan) are required to provide two school systems: one public, and one Catholic (mostly…it’s complicated). This was done on the Provinces’ creation, to make Québec happy: see section 17 of the Alberta Act, amending section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

[1] This acronym seems to change on a daily basis. How long before it’s a hate crime to use the wrong version? Kafka laughs.

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.