Stephen Roney's Blog, page 118

Mandates Dead in Canada

 

Gone in ten days.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Myocarditis in Thailand

 

More disturbing evidence...

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Why Are People Dying?

 

Dr. Campbell must choose his words carefully. But what if it turns out that, from about September of last year, from about the time that governments, including Canada's, were unaccountably imposing vaccine mandates, from about that time, the vaccines were killing more people than the virus?

There may be hell to pay if and when this gets out.

This may be why Trudeau wanted to call an election last fall--to grab a safe majority before the truth came out.

This may be why his government became so insistent that everyone be vaccinated at this point--to eliminate any control group to reveal the problem with the vaccine.

This may be why there are rumours Trudeau wants to call an election against this fall--for which he seems indeed to have been campaigning all summer.  Because they feel there is still a chance, if they move quickly, to grab a safe majority before the word gets out.

With a majority, at worst, they get four more years in power before they get cashiered. At best, they can manage and control the flow of information. Let someone else into power, without a vested interest in keeping all this quiet, and things could get much worse for them./

Okay, a conspiracy theory, but anyone who does not believe in conspiracies by now seems naive.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Jordan Peterson and Bjorn Lomborg

 

A sobering assessment.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

The State of the Academy in Indiana

 

How to speak good English...

One of my Korean students has just started classes at the University of Indiana. He is confused that all international students from countries in which English is not the official majority language must take an extra course in English as a Second Language. He accepts the need in his own case, but notes that some of these students speak impeccable English; some seem, to his ear, to have better English than the professor. And no entrance test was administered: all must take the course, depending only on their place of origin.

This seems to be discriminatory, and to make no sense.

But it makes more sense when we see the topic for his first homework assignment. It is to summarize and compare two short essays. One is by a Chinese-American lamenting that her father is foolishly proud to have lost his Chinese accent. She considers that he has thereby lost part of his ethnic identity, and it is due to cruel social pressure from the majority population. The cruel social pressure being, in part, his being complemented on speaking English well. The other is by a woman of Ojibwe ancestry, who laments that her ancestors had the language taken from them, by having learned English. None of her relatives speak to her in Ojibwe; it has been reserved for prayers. As a result, she must learn it as a second language, in order, in her mind, to reconnect with the thinking of her ancestors.

So the point of the course is apparently not to improve the students’ English. It is to discourage them from improving their English. English, although the course is given entirely in English, is the enemy.

Political indoctrination is plainly the point of this course. But this is actually secondary. The problem in the academy actually goes beyond political indoctrination. To justify their existence, many academic fields and many academics must spend their time in teaching nonsense. If they stuck to the sensible and true, there would be nothing to teach in many fields. Everyone knows, for example, that learning something new is a good thing, to the student’s benefit. If you spend a year simply teaching that it is useful to learn English, you have no course, and no job. 

So why not teach actual content? Why not teach how to write better?

To quote a certain plastic doll, “math is hard.” This requires that the field actually knows anything; and that the professor has learned it. The expansion of the academy into new fields has meant the creation of many new fields without substantial actual content. And in many other fields, the academy is not the proper venue.

In homeschooling my own kids in Canadian history, I read them a sequence of reports from the Kingston Standard of 1832, on the arrival of cholera from Europe. I thought it was especially interesting to compare it with our own recent experience of covid. But the comparison prompted a different response from them:

“How come the writing in newspapers then was so much better?”

This for what was a small-town newspaper, by modern standards.

It is because in those days, people were hired to write for newspapers because they could write well. In our day, people are hired to write for newspapers because they have graduated from journalism school.

Writing cannot be taught in the classroom. This is equally true of other fields: the arts in general, and even teaching itself.

At the same time, teaching correct English, at this level, it is only too likely that students will know more than the professor. That is a frightening prospect for a professor. Best to steer clear of that subject.

So you have to invent something to teach that nobody is likely to know. It therefore has to be something so absurd nobody would have thought it.

And so we get so many of our lunatic “woke” ideas, generated in the academy.

It is wrong to point to a problem without pointing to a solution. The solution is probably already spontaneously in progress. The conventional academy must die, and be replaced by open competition among online courses. The Harvards and McGills may survive by offering comprehensive testing to certify knowledge in a field.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

The Winter of Our Discontent

 

We are living through a chaotic time. But this is not necessarily a bad time. Change for the better also brings, for a time, chaos.

We ought to properly appreciate the apparent miracle that happening in Ukraine. As things stand, this relatively smaller nation looks set to defeat the world’s second greatest military power, Europe’s greatest land power, on land, right adjacent to its borders. The impossible appears about to happen. Other nearby nations are growing restive.

We ought to notice the growing economic problems in China. It seems unnecessary to worry about China becoming a new totalitarian world hegemon. The danger of other regimes imitating the Chinese “success” looks suddenly more limited.

 Closed systems can look good over the short or medium term, but they are self-limiting.

The same moral might apply therefore to wokedom, which relies on putting your fingers in your ears and shutting down sources of information. Like the Wizard in Oz, it looks strong so long as it can intimidate the silent majority into silence, the unthinking into thoughtless assent to the loudest voice. As noted here, it is crashing as we speak, largely due to the anonymous “crowdsourcing” possible with the internet. Wokery is getting voted down online, and the big corporations are beginning to worry and respond.

We are insufficiently celebratory on the fading of COVID. It is ending not with a bang but a whimper, which robs us of an inflection point, a V-J Day to celebrate. But that nightmare is over. We are already beginning to forget.

We are now all alarmed by inflation. I am no expert on economics, but it seems to me this has to be temporary. The underlying trend is deflationary.

Let me explain. Inflation is too much currency chasing too few goods. Improved technology means more goods, produced more efficiently. We are in the middle of a major industrial revolution, thanks to computerization, and a quantum jump in efficiency. It is for this reason that, up until two years ago, inflation was not a concern, and the interest rates were historically low. 

Now the supply of goods has been disrupted by covid and the lockdowns. In the meantime, buoyed by their ability to do so without penalty in recent years, governments just started printing money to help people through the lockdowns. This has caused a jump in inflation, but it was artificial. As supply chains come back, and if the government stops handing out money, the matter should correct.

The only problem is that governments have not started to cut back yet. Nothing could be more insane that Biden’s recent program in the USA: spend more money to stop inflation. Except the Canadian government’s idea of raising taxes on carbon, imposing vaccine mandates, and restricting fertilizer during a supply crisis.

But perhaps that too has a silver lining. The cost of living crunch coming now may discredit this approach for some time to come. Sweden has just tossed out their left-leaning government for a right-leaning one. That may be the start of a general trend.

The malaise of the Carter years in the US, after all, were immediately followed by the golden age of Reagan. Carter’s failures made Reagan’s election possible, and the people and congress prepared to consider his policies.

It may be a tough winter.

It may be a glorious spring.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Tucker Carlson Gets It

 

Eerily germane to my most recent post.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

The Sins of Pierre Poilievre

 

Watching CBC’s “At Issue” panel and Eric Gernier’s “The Writ” podcast, I learn that the heckling at Pierre Poilievre’s first press conference was actually all Poilievre’s fault. He should somehow mysteriously not have reacted, or something. He somehow invisibly lost his composure and showed aggression and weakness. He is also at fault for MP Alain Rayes leaving caucus just days after Poilievre was elected leader. Although both of these look like attacks on Poilievre, they are actually attacks on Rayes and David Aiken, the journalist, by Poilievre, who is intolerant and violent.

This is what cognitive dissonance, or narcissistic rage, looks like.

The argument in either case is the same: “I know Rayes/Aiken personally. We all do. Everyone does. He is a decent guy. He should be given the benefit of the doubt. Any criticism of Rayes/Aiken is illegitimate.”

The talking heads are here simply confirming the perception that there is a “Laurentian elite,” a Family Compact, running the country. They all know one other, speak only to one another, never to the general public. They live by different rules, and will close ranks, like the Freemasons, against outsiders. They are a ruling class.

One of Grenier’s panelists actually said, of Poilievre calling Rayes a “Liberal heckler,” “It shows you’re losing when you criticize the referee.” This means she thinks the established media are the proper government, as referees are in a sports competition, and ought to be immune from criticism.

Not how democracy is supposed to work.

The Rayes case is a bit complicated. Rayes announced he was leaving the Conservative caucus to sit as an independent, because he could not accept Poilievre as leader. Conservative HQ then sent a text message to party members in his riding suggesting that they contact his office and urge him to resign his seat. Rayes went to the media and complained that his constituency office was being flooded by calls. He called this “intimidation.” The Conservative Party then quickly issued a terse apology: “The Conservative Party of Canada apologizes for an automated text message sent out earlier today to party members in the riding of Richmond-Arthabaska.”

It is generally considered an act of disloyalty for a party member to refuse to back the new leader of their party immediately after a leadership contest. It is also true that voters generally vote primarily for the party, not the local candidate, when they go to the polls in a general election. It is therefore more honourable, although not required, when a member voluntarily leaves their party, to resign the seat and run again to take it in their own name. All the more so in this case, since the majority of Conservative members in Rayes’s own constituency backed Poilievre in the recent leadership vote. So Rayes was acting dishonourably, and the Conservative HQ was acting honourably. Calling on him to resign, now that he had declared himself an opponent, should be no more controversial than calling on Trudeau and the Liberal government to resign.

Moreover, there is something obviously wrong with objecting to a call for a popular vote. There is something obviously wrong with calling the expressed opinions of his constituents “intimidation.” Rayes does not hold his seat by divine right. 

The only problem was that the party quickly apologized. That, too, was an honourable thing to do, if done to soothe any hurt feelings. It was a peace offering. But, predictably, the Laurentian elite simply exploited this as proof that the party was in the wrong. After all, they admitted it!

This is in turn a dishonourable response to an apology. 

Those in power are without honour and without ethics. The only possible justification for a ruling class is a higher code of ethics. With this ruling group, we have the opposite. They must fall.

The media are demanding right out of the gate that Poilievre show proper deference to them, show he is going to play by their rules, or they will go all out to destroy him. 

The problem is, however, that if he plays the game by their rules, those rules dictate that he must always lose. He must surrender his principles, betray his voters, and still lose the election. Witness O’Toole, Romney, McCain—or Boris Johnson in the end. 

One hopes Poilievre is smart enough to see this, to battle the establishment media and rely on the new media to get his message out. It will take nerves of steel. It will take a true leader.

Looking forward, one of Grenier’s panelists saw the future as being “simply bad.” Unnamed parties lacking maturity—they keep talking about maturity, the subtext being that most people other than themselves are and should be treated like children--working in tandem with the Conservative Party, would now be spreading irresponsible falsehoods (or did she say “misinformation”) that the public should not be allowed to hear.

In a democracy, of course, there is nothing the public should not be allowed to hear. It is up to them to decide what is false.

These talking heads so casually say outrageous things, and then all nod their heads in agreement. They are never challenged, in their small bubble.

That bubble must be popped. It will be, sooner or later.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Trudeau Derangement Syndrome?

 

Trump Derangement Syndrome has been a growing social problem for some time. People become irrational when discussing Trump.

We now also seem to have Poilievre Derangement Syndrome; demonstrated by a Global journalist at his most recent press conference. Any sane person would have seen that his was odd and improper behavior. 

Those who suffer from Trump or Poilievre derangement syndrome insist that Trump and Poilievre lie.  But the opposite is true. They are speaking truths we are supposedly not allowed to speak. And they say it clearly, so it cannot be ignored; they are good communicators. 

Precisely this is a problem to people who are trying to impose and live some lie. 

The spontaneous reaction is to claim it is Trump, or Poilievre, who are lying. Confession by projection. 

Another natural reaction is incoherent rage: this is the “fight or flight” reaction. M. Scott Peck and other psychologists have noted this when narcissists are confronted with their falsehoods: “narcissistic rage,” which can look to a sane observer like a psychotic break. They will say or do objectively crazy things; they lose control of themselves. Like the Global reporter.

Another accusation is likely to be that Trump or Poilievre are “bullying” or are being “violent.” When all they are doing is speaking the truth; and with a sense of humour. More confession by projection: resistance feels like bullying to those trying to bully. The cheerfully peaceful freedom truckers faced similar accusations.

But that is not what I write about today. Today, I want to examine my own Trudeau Derangement Syndrome. I can no longer abide the very sight of Justin Trudeau; the sound of his voice is like the proverbial chalk screeching on a blackboard. 

Is this the same thing?

I think not. 

To begin with, I’m pretty confident I do not have outbursts of rage or irrational speech or behaviour as a result. I just turn off the video. I do criticize in print, but I think I do not accuse Trudeau of saying what he did not say, or doing what he did not do. I think I make an effort to preserve context. I think my response is more in the pit of the stomach than in the synapses of the brain. It is disgust more than fear.

And it is not tribal the way TDS seems to be. TDS seems to be caused by only one side of the political spectrum: those who react so passionately to Trump seem to do so as well with Poilievre, or Tucker Carlson, or George Bush, or Ben Shapiro, or Jordan Peterson—all more or less on the right politically, all rough ideological allies. 

I, on the other hand, have the same reaction to Erin O’Toole as to Trudeau. I had the same reaction, in his day, to Richard Nixon, or to George Bush Senior, or, for that matter, to Dinesh D’Souza. These people are not all on the same side.

My core complaint, in my own mind, is that they are liars. This resembles TDS. But I think my claim is generally objective and provable. It is not what they say, but that I have caught them in an actual lie. Nixon and O’Toole were quite open about running on the right for their party’s leadership, then moving over to the centre to contest the general election. In other words, they lied. 

George Bush Sr. famously said “read my lips-no new taxes”; and then raised taxes while in office. Surely that was an unambiguous lie.

I have caught D’Souza and Trudeau in similar lies. When I do, a curtain goes down for me. Lying blatantly is unforgivable—until and unless an apology is offered.

I would not mind so much if they are artful about it. I can forgive a genial rascal; such lies are largely for entertainment value, like tales of Paul Bunyan. Diefenbaker used to lie like that; Trump does. I do not accuse a stage magician of lying, either. 

But these guys, Nixon, Bush, and the rest, were perfectly flat-footed and open, without even trying to be charming about it. That suggests contempt of their audience.

And that, in the end, is what galls me most about Trudeau. He is obviously at all times acting, putting on a performance, not saying what he really thinks. It is his only skill; he is, after all, a drama teacher. 

But he is such a bad actor. His performance is so awful it is insulting to suspend disbelief. He is just a clown in whiteface, just as he is in blackface; mugging for the camera and saying “look at me.” A good actor instead disappears into the character.

A particularly annoying tic is that, when he is openly lying, he signals it by saying “ah” at almost every second word. It is as if he wants to make it clear by this that he is calculating what he is going to say, rather than speaking spontaneously. In other words, he is asking us to give him license to act, to lie. He is making no effort. 

Compare Trump. Trump ran in the general election on exactly the same platform as in the primaries. In office, he made an effort to do exactly what he said he would do.

We desperately need the Trumps and the Poilievres right now—assuming Poilievre pays out and does not prevaricate. Our society has become increasingly delusional and narcissistic.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

What If Russia Cracks?

 

More tentatively good news: the attack by Azerbaijan on Armenia.

Not that this is good in itself. 

But the subtext is that Armenia is a Russian client state. Now that Russia is preoccupied in Ukraine, it is pulling resources from other areas, and its weakness is exposed. Other restive areas may similarly be emboldened. This could push the Russian regime towards general collapse. It could also overturn several other unsavory regimes.

The regimes in Kazakhistan, Belarus, and Syria all recently faced civil unrest that probably have overthrown the government had Russia not sent in troops. This might appear to many there as the ideal moment to try again, or launch a new offensive. Georgia might try to retake breakaway territory Russia seized from them.

Other vulnerable Russian client states: Mongolia, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Transnistria.

Within the Russian Federation, there are 22 “republics,” ethnically distinct from Russia, which might seize the chance to split off. Often they are ethically linked to a neighboring country, which might be happy to assist in this process. Or, for that matter, invade.

We may be watching a snowball starting downhill.

While for a time things might get chaotic, the result might be major gains for liberal democracy. And a unified Europe stretching to the Urals.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.