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

Advertisements

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

Mexi-Can / Can’t-ada

I recently visited Mexico for a week. There were some stark contrasts between Mexican and Canadian society which I cannot let lie without comment.

On entry into Mexico, everyone’s bags were x-rayed. I was subject to a random search by Mexican authorities. This included a search of my bag. The officer, dressed in a plain uniform, asked me why I was coming to Mexico, how much money I had with me, was I bringing any agricultural matter with me, and whether I had any goods I was selling while in his country? His questions were part English and part Spanish, and I had to convey my answers sometimes in broken Spanish. He asked me how much currency I had, and when I gave him the amounts in Pesos, US$ and CAD$, his response was that I must tell him in US$. He asked me about the books I was bringing into Mexico, what they were about, if I liked them, and searched them for concealed pockets. His questions were about my purpose and character, and while appearing somewhat indolent, there was no question that if he thought I was a bad person or had bad intentions, there to break his country’s laws, I would be sent home. Once he was satisfied this was not the case, he let me enter. His concern was for the safety of his country.

On my return to Canada, I was also stopped for a random search by Canadian authorities. Only my bag was x-rayed, and everyone else passed through unmolested. The customs officer, in uniform, but sporting sleeve tattoos, confirmed that I had bottles of Tequila which did not exceed my exemption from value added tax. He then did a hand search, admitting it was my black duffel bag which caused the “random” search, information which no doubt people actually doing illegal business could use to prevent the inconvenience of the rule of law. He asked no questions about the books, how much currency I had, and only seemed interested in whether I had meat with me, or had something otherwise subject to value added taxation. I did not. His search of the bag ended quickly and abruptly when he found a loose $5 US dollar bill in it, which seemed to strike the fear of God in him.

In Mexico, I am interrogated until officials are satisfied I am there with no malevolence. This occurs because Mexican customs cares about the unity, safety and security of Mexico.

In Canada, I am glad handed until officials have made a significant show that value added tax will be assessed, that the Canada Customs workforce is sufficiently diverse, and that my rights under the Canadian Charter were not infringed, including the right to be questioned in French, a right which probably costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to make available, all so the pretense of collecting $9 in value added tax, should it be owing, is maintained. This occurs because Canada only cares about taking its “fair share” from its citizens to equalize its citizens. Which means to maintain the appearance of being ‘woke’ and ‘sensitive’ to all the possible ways people differ, by language, gender, sex, race, ethnicity, and any other head of difference. All to maintain equality by according unequal treatment to all on the basis of those characteristics, making a custom set of rules for the conduct of each citizen, thereby promoting the disunity of the nation, at the cost of its safety and security.

Speaking of customs officials, they act like family in Mexico. They laughed, argued, flirted with each other, they supported one another, were quick and practical when it came to dealing with travelers, and overall, and made it clear it was them, as a unified force, versus bad people intending to do bad shit in their country.

“Behave yourself, or we all will act against you, extranjero!” says the Mexican. Mexicans care about Mexicans.

In Canada, they all look utterly miserable, frustrated, like a Gulag inmate, who knows that once he moves all the rocks across the road today, he’ll have to move them back where they came from tomorrow. There is no comradery, no caring, no unity among them, and it is no surprise as each asks: “Did I get this job because I’m competent, or due to my race/religion/sex/gender/ethnicity?” I’ve seen enough to know this is because they know they are only preserving the appearance of security in favour of the appearance of diversity.

Further, under the Charter, they know a potential criminal must be treated as innocent until proven guilty, but that their actions, which they undertake to protect the nation, are presumed to be a breach of the perpetrator’s rights until it is shown they were justified. Not to mention, that if they take action against a person of a different race, religion, language, ethnicity, they may be skewered as a racist, sexist, bigot, or other such label for progressive heresy and lose their jobs, their standing, and face a modern equivalent of exile as punishment.

“Please behave yourself, because having to enforce the law means we are criminals, because it means diversity is not our strength and our privileges are not checked, so stranger, please pay the taxes and try to leave the country how you found it…” says the Canadian. Canadians do not care about Canadians, because they may not care about them without guidance from Ottawa and their local Human Rights Board, prescribing which people may be cared about and how, which must always be based on their status as victims based on the characteristics listed in the Charter.

One final point. While in the airport in Mexico waiting to fly home, a boy in one of the bathroom stalls started screaming. Clearly, he was scared and perhaps hurt. He had probably had an accident of some kind: children are children. He was desperately crying for his mother. An attendant went to the stall to see what was wrong, and this frightened the boy who cried and screamed louder, asking for his mother. The attendant told the boy he would be okay, and he would find the boy’s mother. I assume things were worked out from there. The Mexican did this because he cares about people.

In Canada, no such thing would occur. The boy would be left to howl. This is because anyone who cared enough to help him would face potentially being labelled a pedophile for entering a bathroom stall where a boy is using the toilet. There are no attendants, because Canada has forgotten that people use bathrooms and not the other way around. So, it is up to the other users, none of which can act upon compassion because the best they can hope for is indifference, if not condemnation, for their actions by puritans looking for sinners in everything. And so the child, cared for in Mexico, would be left in agony in Canada.

Mexico remembers its humanity, even with all the troubles they have. Mexicans care for Mexico because they care about Mexicans because they care about human beings.

Canada has gone mad, and in the madness replaced human considerations with a cult of progressivism. Canadians care not for Canada because they cannot ‘care’ for Canadians because the only acceptable form of ‘caring’ is a religious rite of progressive affirmation which affirms the cult and not the people. As a result, they do not care about people because caring for people as humans is discouraged and offensive: the only sanctioned way of caring for people must be based on their class as “historically disadvantaged” minorities. This is why an ex-Al Qaeda member who killed a US military medic gets $10.5 million for his time at Gitmo, while veterans who get their limbs blown off in that very same war are told they ask for too much when expecting compensation.

Canada has devolved from a unified nation, to a loose collection who see Canada as an ever-shrinking pie for which they ungratefully must take as much as they can while the getting is good. Hence the reason why Québec’s Premier can, in the face of $13 billion in federal transfers to his province (a net drain on the revenues of the federal coffers), express his gratitude by openly advocating for the extermination of the livelihoods of those who, through taxes, make a net contribution to those same federal coffers, and then without any sense of hypocrisy or irony send one of his Ministers to claim that those he would see impoverished have no cause for offence. This is utter ignorance of the human condition, a disdain for people, a disdain for Canadians, and a disdain for Canada, and it is all sanctioned by Ottawa, who has abdicated its sovereignty and responsibility, preferring to keep up appearances rather than keep the country unified, safe and secure.

Second Law School Lesson Not Taught

Lawyers deal with conflict. Where there is no conflict, you are not needed. If you cannot handle conflict, you are not useful.

All legal disputes are conflict. It may be between private parties, governments, spouses, children versus their dead parent, or individual versus the state and its delegates. It’s all conflict. There are few legal situations which do not engage the rights or obligations of at least two parties, and so a conflict prima facie exists.

Most people resolve most conflicts on their own. Some do not like conflict, so avoid or ignore it, until they no longer can. Some follow social customs meant to end and control conflict. Some acquiesce, or some simply let their complaint or grievance go. Some people meet conflict head-on to resolve it. The best do so in a manner benefiting both sides, or at least causing minimal harm. Most conflict is resolved directly by the parties involved fairly quickly.

Some people do not resolve conflict, but increase it. Some feed off of the drama of conflict. Some learned that the only way to have relationships is to have and escalate conflict. There are some persons who are traumatized, anxious, or in some other mental state or condition which makes conflict painful. Being dysfunctional in the face of conflict, they often cannot deal with it and make it worse.

In serious conflict, it is often the case that the actual conflict is not the one people are fighting over. Children of a deceased parent battle over the parent’s will and estate as a proxy for their unresolved issues. Worse, some deliberately create new conflicts as a way of avoiding dealing with the actual issue, either to avoid painful consequences, or to fill their pockets.

As a lawyer, you’ll get to deal with all of the above. Your job: resolve the conflict. Not exacerbate it, not dramatize it, not create more of it because you won’t face it or to increase billings. Your job is to resolve it.

Some clients will make it easy. Some, who do not or will not handle conflict well, will make it very difficult. Your greatest headaches will be clients, and lawyers, avoiding conflict and its consequences. They will seek to make you the instrument by which they affect their own dysfunctional manner of handling conflict. They will escalate, argue over non-issues, fight over irrelevancies, dramatize the matter, give you conflicting and unethical instructions, and be inconsistent and hypocritical. All of this is frustrating.

It is, however, just conflict, between you and them. You must learn to handle this conflict, deal with these people and move on to resolve the matter. Be firm and courteous without and calm and controlled within. Practice this by exposing yourself to conflict (not creating it), by reviewing your conduct, and determine how to handle it better next time. This art is ten times more valuable than the skills needed to resolve the actual legal issues. If you deal with such conflict well, resolving the legal conflict is easy. If you do not, you get sucked into their drama, and burn out quickly.

Some clients do not want a resolution. They are angry and obsessed, and seek to attack their enemy in any way possible, in order to cause harm and chaos, long after any potential for a redress for their injuries (often, only perceived) is gone. Fire these clients.

Lawyers deal with conflict. Where there is no conflict, you are not needed. If you cannot handle conflict, you are not useful.

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.

Quote April 1, 2018

“As far as responsibility goes, no one really wants it — but all of us are responsible to the community we live in & its laws. When the time comes to assume responsibility of a home and children or business, this is the seeding of the boys from the Men — for surely you can realize what a mess the world would be if everyone in it said, “I want to be an individual, without responsibilities, & be able to speak my mind freely & do as I alone will.” We are all free to speak & do as we individually will — providing this “freedom” of Speech & Deed are not injurious to our fellow-man.”

Letter from Barbara to her brother, Perry Smith, April 28, 1958. See In Cold Blood, by Truman Capote.