Stephen Roney's Blog, page 19

Happy Valentine's Day from Canada

 

Mark Carney
The mood everywhere on the left seems to verge on hysteria. Or perhaps this is “narcissistic rage.”

People are claiming that Trump’s tariffs and proposed unification are “an existential threat to Canada.” Those who welcome annexation are supposedly against Canada. Some point out that these are often the same people who supported the Freedom convoy, and claimed to be defending Candain culture against mass immigration. But they were traitors all along!

If the proposal to unite with the US is an existential threat to Canada, New Brunswick must have ceased to exist in 1867; British Columbia died in 1871. And all those blackguards we call Fathers of Confederation were traitors.

To the contrary: unification when possible with a larger body is the essence of Canada, beginning with union with the now dissolved British Empire. It is why Canada has always been a joiner when it comes to international bodies of all kinds.

And next to that, according to Laurier, the essence of Canada is freedom: “Canada is free, and freedom is its nationality.” If, therefore, Canadians preserve freedom in union with neighbours—or even increase their freedom—this is the perfect expression of the Canadian identity.

If one’s “Canadianness” consists only in not being American, this is not a nationality. It is merely a prejudice. In all the normal senses of the word, Canadian culture is American culture. Same language, same religion, same ethnicity, same political ideology, same history. If you reject American culture, you are rejecting Canadian culture. You are the one who is unpatriotic.

If Trump is an existential threat to Canada, moreover, then a man is an existential threat to a woman if he asks her to marry him. Were we not hysterical, we would at least be gracious, and appreciate the offer.

Instead, our embarrassing leadership, including Mark Carney, respond with threats and insults. These seem calculated to harm, first and foremost, Canada. They cannot seriously harm Trump or the US. At best, they are hysteria. At worst, they are treason.

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

Trump's Grand Strategy

 

A map of the contiguous 55 states.

Trump’s foreign policy moves—wanting to annex Greenland, wanting to annex Canada, wanting the Panama Canal returned, wanting to take Gaza—might seem random outbursts, back of the envelope ideas. But they all make sense on one strategic principle.

Trump is preparing for war with China or perhaps a China-Russia coalition. He is not inclined to be caught flat-footed, as Britain was in 1939.

This is just as well, since China seems to be preparing for war, and Russia has already started.

Trump needs Greenland as a source of rare earth minerals, necessary for chip production. China has the other great cache of rare earth, and the US as well as the rest of the world is currently reliant on them. Doom in case of war.

Denmark is just not big or strong enough to protect Greenland and its sea lanes if China or Russia struck first. Perhaps the US could take it back, but that’s a much more difficult proposition than defending it well in the first place. And taking it back is not enough. Mines must be developed and a supply chain set up in advance of conflict. Otherwise American will not be able to make the weapons needed to take it back.

The same applies to Canada’s North. It too is rich in minerals, including strategic oil and uranium. Like Denmark, Canada is not strong enough to defend this vast territory. And on top of oil and minerals, the Northwest Passage may soon become more navigable—if not due to global warming, due to improved icebreaking technology. This could then become a critical supply route for both the US East Coast and Europe—a shorter route than the Panama Canal. But a route vulnerable to Russia nearby.

Supply routes become critical in time of war. Britain defeated Germany in both past wars largely due to blockade; while Germany’s best hope was cutting off the North Atlantic convoy with their U-boats. Britain always pursued a similar strategy of owning the choke points for trade: Gibraltar, Suez, Singapore, Quebec, Aden, the Cape of Good Hope. America cannot rely any longer, as it once could, on a strong Britain to keep trade routes open.

And so too the importance of the Panama Canal. The US needs to hold that choke point, and keep it away from China. Panama cannot defend it. It connects the American East and West coasts.

And now look at Gaza. Note how close it is to the Suez Canal. A US military base in Gaza is at least in easy striking distance—across good flat tank terrain, let alone in bomber range. The US does not need Suez for its trade—but Europe does. Thus Trump should want to control it, both to protect Europe and, if necessary, to keep Europe in line.

This is also why Trump has just declared 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum. These are strategic materials, needed for tanks, artillery, airplanes, ships, shells. America cannot import their steel from China, fostering that industry, while their own withers. And it is better not to rely on vulnerable and not entirely reliable Canada either—unless Canada joins the union, with the US armed forces to build and maintain strong defenses.

Canada not entirely reliable? No; Justin Trudeau has demonstrated that to the Americans. Canada can elect governments with Chinese and totalitarian sympathies; and Americans remember Cuba. Canada has proven vulnerable to Chinese and Indian espionage and influence over its electoral process. Canda is letting in a lot of immigrants who may not be democratic or pro-Western in their allegiances.

I used to be a firm believer in free trade. But its advantages are gone in case of war. America’s great advantage has always been its massive industrial production and self-sufficiency, protected behind oceans from sudden attack. It could always win a long war. Trump must restore that massive industrial production and security of resources to make America safe again. 

Once we see the strategy, we can perhaps predict Trump’s future moves. One can expect him to act quickly and decisively to bring chip production onshore from Taiwan and Indonesia. Expect big tariffs here. I would not be surprised if he offered Denmark statehood, during Greenland negotiations, in order to control the entrance to the Baltic Sea.

Other ideas are welcome in the comments.

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

The Liberal Resurrection

 

Mark Carney

I fear Trump has put a stick in the spokes of the Poilievre bandwagon. Bad news for Canada. 

Six months ago, I thought the future looked sunnier for Canada than for the US. We had a strong opposition leader in Poilievre, and our system looked capable of managing the impending populist revolution in an orderly fashion. Things looked darker in the US, with lawfare, riots, and assassination attempts. It seemed that civil war or revolution in the streets might break out.

Now the situation seems reversed. Trump is upstaging Poilievre. The radicalism of his program makes Poilievre look less exciting by comparison, and more like controlled opposition. Enthusiasm flags.

Without a truly radical option to vote for, the choice between Poilievre and (presumably) Carney now devolves to who looks more competent to manage. And Carney’s resume beats Poilievre, whose expertise and experience is limited to parliament and politics.

Poilievre has always been good at sticking to one message, as one should on rhetorical principles. “Axe the tax.” His calculation was that the Liberals could not abandon this central plank of their platform. But his attack has been so successful that they, Carney and Freeland and Dhalla, actually have. And now the carbon tax looks incidental in comparison to the threat of tariffs and annexation.

And the Liberals can now run against a foreign adversary instead of Poilievre, and benefit from a “rally round the flag” effect. If he says anything against the current government, or dissents in any way from their proposed program, Poilievre can be accused of disloyalty in the face of the enemy. Is he on Trump’s side? But if he agrees with everything they are doing, and Carney has a reputation for competence, why switch leaders?

The best hope now is that Carney will stumble or blunder in such a way as to look incompetent. Not impossible; but also not to be expected.

If Carney does manage to pull things out for the Liberals, I think this will hasten the dissolution of Canada. Trump will have won. Alberta will opt for independence and join the Union, in frustration. Others will follow. Poilievre is Canada’s only chance of staying united and independent.

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

The Roots of Racism and Prejudice

 

The sinister Christian women of the Deep South

In a recent poetry group, one participant composed a poem ending with a wish that “deep South evangelicals” would “pray for forgiveness for their myriad sins and continual hypocrisy.”

I felt obliged to send her a private note pointing out that this is hate speech. Something published, outside private conversation, that could promote hatred of an identifiable group. Would it sound all right if it read:

“I hope the Jews will pray for forgiveness for their myriad sins and continual hypocrisy.”?

“I hope the Muslims will pray for forgiveness for their myriad sins and continual hypocrisy.”

Or substitute Buddhists, or Hindus, or followers of “aboriginal spirituality.” 

It would be acceptable, true, if written by an evangelical from the Deep South about evangelicals from the Deep South; Christians are good at accusing themselves. But this poet was a Canadian secularist.

I warned her she could conceivably get herself in legal trouble here. And it is worth remembering that anything you put out on the Internet is forever. The political climate can change, and things that are socially acceptable now may not be in the future. What you say now can and may be used against you. 

It is unfortunately currently socially acceptable in Canada to express hatred towards Americans, people from the “Deep South,” and evangelical Christians. She managed to hit all three. That does not make it right. It was similarly socially acceptable to hate Jews in Hitler’s Germany.

Not that I believe there should be “hate laws”; but hate speech is nevertheless an ill thing.

This was her response:

“Yes, I'm aware, and I specifically said "deep south" and not all Evangelicals. And since the re-election of the felon, I am so angry that I don't even care what people think about that. The religious right in the deep south have been planning Project2025 for years, just waiting for the right guy to help them achieve it. Transactional Trump gave them what they wanted, including on SCOTUS, in exchange for votes - and now many millions are and will suffer because of it: the LGBTQ, women in general, pregnant women with complications and will die (and already have), legal immigrants to the US - yes, I've read from credible sources that even legalized citizens from South America have been getting their papers ripped up and they're carted out of the country like criminals ... by the biggest crooks are in the WH, who released the Capital Hill criminals who killed police officers and security personnel - here he is, carting out Venezuelens, many of whom are hard-working, tax-paying folks who lived in the US for many years. 

“I could go on, but I won't. … I appreciate your advice. I am just too mad right now to be sorry about my activist poetry. 

“So, yes, although I have always been against hate speech, I find myself hating the religious right of the US south. But my poem pales in comparison to much that comes out of the felon's mouth.”

Let’s take a closer look.

To begin with, this, surely, is a perfect example of just what she accused the evangelicals of: hypocrisy. She is opposed to “hate speech,” but she has a right to it, because she is angry. Assuming she also shares the view on the left that hurting someone’s feelings is a serious crime, here she nevertheless reserves the right to herself to say what she likes, and “not even care what people think about that.”

She thinks her criticisms are fair, because she said “Deep South,” not all evangelicals. Yet “Deep South evangelicals” is just as much an identifiable group as “evangelicals.” I wonder if she actually has no concept of individuality or individual responsibility. So she has no concept of why racism or prejudice is wrong. This seems possible on the modern left.

“The religious right in the deep south have been planning Project2025 for years.”

Project 2025 itself claims it is a “broad coalition of over 100 conservative organizations.” Not just the “religious right,” then. Its primary sponsor is the Heritage Foundation in Washington D.C. Not the Deep South. Of course, they might be lying. These could all be front organizations. We could get into conspiracy theories here.

“Transactional Trump gave them what they wanted.” 

It is not clear whether Trump is influenced by the proposals of Project 2025. He says he is not. On the one hand, why wouldn’t he be? He’s a conservative, and the Heritage Foundation is a leading conservative think tank. Think tanks exist to give policy advice. On the other hand, conservative policies are conservative policies; it also seems reasonable to assume that Trump’s policies would be about the same whether or not Project 2025 existed.

Our correspondent must next explain why there is something wrong with the concerns of the religious right, and why there is something wrong with the policies proposed by Project 2025.

She proceeds:

“Including on SCOTUS.” So she is referring to Trump’s appointment of “originalist” justices to the Supreme Court.

Originalism means you interpret the text of the constitution in light of what the framers must have intended, based on historical knowledge.

This applies to abortion, for example: since abortion was medically possible when the Constitution was written and adopted, and was illegal, and such matters were reserved to the states, it seems unreasonable to assume they intended to make abortion a human right. Therefore, no more Roe v. Wade.

She objects to originalism because it leads to a conclusion she does not like.

Here’s a logical problem: our correspondent laments that Trump appointed these judges “in exchange for votes.” First, doing things for votes is more or less what happens in a democracy; so what’s the objection? Other than that the vote went against her own desires. Which must supersede both the popular will and the constitution?

One begins to suspect that narcissism is the key to the modern left.

Second, “Deep South evangelicals” are a relatively small proportion of voters. Many other groups must have consented. Including large numbers of women, an absolute majority of the population. Why not blame women?

There must be some other special reason to hate “Deep South evangelicals.”

“The LGBTQ” will suffer from “it.” 

It is not clear what “it” is—the Supreme Court or Project 2025 or Trump. She does not specify how LGBTQs will suffer. And I would question whether there is any such group.  L’s have no particular interests in common with T’s, for example, and are commonly at loggerheads over washroom use. G’s worry that the current T push is castrating G’s. Many refuse to identify themselves with their sexual preferences or as “LGBTQ.”

Without elaboration, I cannot reasonably guess what she’s on about.

“Women in general” will suffer.

Again the impending oppression is unarticulated. But as noted, women form a majority of voters, and have the power to save themselves if this is so awful. 46% of them, according to exit polls, voted for Trump.

“pregnant women with complications … will die (and already have).”

She does not specify how this will happen. Presumably because states are now free to pass laws that make it illegal to treat women who have ectopic pregnancies and the like. 

This claim appears to be true. I used Grok to check, presumably not a left-wing source. Some women in Texas have been refused treatment by doctors afraid of possible legal liability; some have died. Maternal death rates have apparently risen in states with restrictive abortion laws.

This is alarming. But it is also obviously not the intent of such laws. Presumably it can be addressed by redrafting the laws, and educating doctors as to their legal responsibilities. 

You might be able to put some blame here on overzealous evangelicals in the “Deep South” who pressed for such laws, too hastily drafted. I’d be more inclined to blame the legislators and the doctors.

“…legal immigrants to the US - yes, I've read from credible sources that even legalized citizens from South America have been getting their papers ripped up and they're carted out of the country like criminals.”

Grok, which synthesizes all net sources, says this has never happened. Some US citizens have been mistakenly detained, until their citizenship was established. None have been deported.

Trump “released the Capital Hill criminals who killed police officers and security personnel.”

Grok confirms that no police or security personnel were killed at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. This is a commonly repeated falsehood on the left.

“Here he [Trump] is, carting out Venezuelens, many of whom are hard-working, tax-paying folks who lived in the US for many years.”

No doubt there are Venezuelans in the US who are illegal immigrants, have been here for many years, have paid taxes, and are being or will be deported. However, they are still criminals; they are in the US illegally. Paying taxes does not permit or waive punishment for crime.

“My poem pales in comparison to much that comes out of the felon's mouth.”

She gives no examples. To say that some Mexicans are rapists, or that some Haitians eat cats or dogs, or that Covid came from China, is not hate speech. These are simple statements of fact, even if erroneous, and provable. 

So can we understand from all this where the hate is from? Given its incoherence, I think the real key must be something left unspoken: I say it is a hatred of Christians. Everything else is constructed to justify it. This springs from the same font as the eternal hatred of Jews: because either represents the morality as divine mandate, and so is anathema to a guilty conscience.

Scapegoating always follows this pattern. 

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

Trump's Gaza Idea

 

Trump’s proposal to take over Gaza, remove all thePalestinians, and develop it as a “Middle Eastern Riviera” is astonishing.

Unfortunately, this looks like ethnic cleansing. It seems tome that it is, by common definition, and therefore a “crime against humanity.”

On the other hand, it also looks like the only way to achievepeace in the area. Supposedly 80% of Gazans support Hamas. Hamas refuses torecognize Israel’s right to exist, and vows eternal war. “From the river to thesea.” So long as there is this hostile population right next to Israelisettlements, like a knife alongside Israel’s throat, war and atrocities and bombingsand civilian deaths will continue.

Separating the parties looks like the only way; just as,when you find two dogs fighting in the alley, you pull them apart.

There is too little land in either Gaza or Israel for abuffer zone; especially with both sides possessing rockets.

In any real world, there is no place to move the 9 millionpeople of Israel. Put the Jewish state anywhere else, and you have all the sametensions as here.

On the other hand, the 1.7 million Gazans are culturallyidentical with a dozen countries nearby. Same language, same religion; historicallyone country, up until 1917, with continuing dreams of reunification. They arejust one small neighbourhood in a vast Arab and Muslim world.

Is moving the Gazan Arabs substantially and ethicallydifferent from expropriating for a new shopping centre?

Is moving the Gazan Arabs substantially and ethically differentfrom the Israeli government requiring Jews to move out of Gaza some years ago,in an earlier attempt to separate the two sides?

By itself, Israel had no way to move the Arabs. Israel hadlittle land, Israel is just Israel, with no other place to put them.

But the US may have the wasta to use with some nearby nation.Most obviously, Egypt: Egypt owned the Gaza strip up until 1967, and so up tothen accepted the Gazan Arabs as Egyptian citizens. Egypt gets especially largesums in foreign aid from the US. It should be easy for Trump to buy Egyptiancompliance. With some investment in desalinization, it should be possible tomake some part of the Egyptian desert bloom, as has been done in Saudi Arabiaor the UAE. Presto: a nice new home for the Gazans.

At the same time, why does it make sense for the US to takeownership of Gaza?

So that the enterprise can be self-financing. The US paysfor relocating the Gazans, and for building a tourism infrastructure; but it isan investment. The place has tourism potential. The US makes the money back intaxes on the revenue. Never mind a Middle Eastern Riviera. It can be a MiddleEastern Monte Carlo. There is a lot of money in the nearby Persian Gulf. Beirutused to profit from such tourism: a place where Muslims could indulge in manypleasures not available at home. Why not Gaza, with its beaches?

Secondly, the US gets an inalienable military base in astrategic and unstable part of the world. Britain has done well with its basesin Cyprus.

Why does it make sense for Israel?

It removes the knife at their throat, which they cannot dofor themselves, either as a practical matter or because of internationaldisapproval.

Without owning the property, the Israelis stand to benefitas much as if they did. The people actually living and working and investing inthe revamped Gaza strip and making the money from the new developments will inevitablymostly be Israelis.

And a permanent American presence is a further guarantee of Israelisecurity. Like the American troops permanently stationed in South Korea, Gazabecomes a “trip wire” in case of attempted invasion. If anyone attacks Israel henceforth,the US is almost automatically militarily engaged. It is a peacekeeping force.

And it makes sense for the Gazans, even if this is the hardsell. Reputedly polls even before the present conflict showed at least 44% of youngGazans sought to emigrate. They have been artificially sealed off in thisnarrow strip by the closing of the Egyptian border, and the refusal of otherArab lands to take them.

It really looks like a win-win-win situation.

This is what happens when you elect an entrepreneur aspresident. Business is all about spotting such opportunities.

I think we need to change international law.

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

The Rise of Antisemitism

 Simon Sebag Montefiore:

"To call October 7 a wake-up call is an understatement. People that we trusted—professors, journalists, charity workers—suddenly started celebrating the killing of civilians, the murder of grandmothers, the rape of girls, and the stealing of people as an act of war. And that was a terrible moment. I think we all went through it, and it was astonishing. That day, I remember watching professors who were at Harvard and Yale and Princeton suddenly saying, This is just a wonderful act of resistance. And that was terrifying, wasn’t it?"

We live in a nightmare moment of history. Montefiore believes the period of peace between 1945 and 2023 was a historical anomaly; and we are about to go back to the business of mass murder. 

I fear he may be right.

However, there is a concurrent rise of renewed faith and vigour. It is not that the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. In fact, I see the passion of the worst flagging, and the best gaining confidence, in the various populist movements around the developed world.

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

Tariffs Postponed

 

The Trump tariffs on Canada and Mexico—and their counter-tariffs—have been averted for at least a month. But I am sickened now by the endless posts I see on X saying “Trump blinked,” or “Trudeau backed down,” “Trump got nothing,” “Trudeau bent the knee,” and on and on. It seems to me a display of pure human evil. These people want to dominate others. 

The proper understanding is that Trump and Trudeau have managed to reach a deal satisfactory to both. Thank God,l for both our countries.

We should not want to fight. We should not be so eager to turn on our friends.

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

Beauty, Eh?

 

I tried to explain recently to a friend who describes herself as “spiritual, but not religious,” and a “cafeteria Catholic,” why I take my Catholicism seriously.

I know where she is coming from. The speaker at a recent Life in the Spirit seminar argued that original sin is passed on through bad parenting. That is, we project our experience with our own parents onto God, and this makes us mistrust him. “Daddy issues.”

That seems to me spot on, and just what the Bible itself suggests. All the families in the Old Testament are dysfunctional, as if to make this point. The sins of the father are passed on to the sons unti the fourth generation.

In the immoral words of Philip Larkin:

They fuck you up, your mum and dad.   
    They may not mean to, but they do.   
They fill you with the faults they had
    And add some extra, just for you. 

But they were fucked up in their turn
    By fools in old-style hats and coats,   
Who half the time were soppy-stern
    And half at one another’s throats. 

Man hands on misery to man.
    It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
    And don’t have any kids yourself.

The last two lines of course defeat the purpose of creation. And “soppy-stern” and “at one another’s throats” are not the only dysfunctional options. There is neglect, abuse, scapegoating, deliberate or mistaken bad advice and bad example, causing a child to stumble, and pampering.

But the only protection against false authority is true authority. 

As Mr. Robert Dylan put it, you’re gonna have to serve somebody. “It may be the Devil, or it may be the Lord, but you’re gonna have to serve somebody.” 

“I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other. So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.” – Revelation 3: 14

Neutrality is not an option. If you leave the God-seat vacant, a demon will come in and take it. 

And the instant you are aware of God, this requires immediate submission. As the ground of being, of all that is, the perfect good, truth, and beauty, he deserves absolute reverence. You must, in conscience, love him with all your heart, all your mind, and all your energy. Not to do so is intrinsically an act of rebellion. A rebellion we are all guilty of to some extent, but never creditable.

if we do not submit entirely to his authority, we are repeating the error of Eve. 

You will say, but all those religious people are hypocrites. That’s the usual excuse. Of course they are. We are all sinners. But that is not a valid argument; it is the “ad hominem” fallacy. If a thing is true, it does not matter who said it. 

All right, so how do we do the will of God? What does God want from us anyway?

Jesus told us. “If you love me, keep my commandments.” That means we have to get in harness. We can’t just go on fulfilling our own will.

Okay, so how do we know which religion represents his wishes?

To my mind this is an entirely secondary consideration. So long as we are acting in good faith, it does not matter. And so long aas we are acting in bad faith, it does not matter.

God is Truth, Goodness, and Beauty. If we seek Truth, Justice, and Beauty with every fibre of our being, with our whole heart,  mind, and energy, despite the possible consequences to us, we are worshipping God and following his commandments. If we do not, we are not.

I trust the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I trust them because they contain the distilled wisdom of the ages; one must have a pretty high opinion of one’s own intellect to question them, rather than your own assumptions, when they differ. I trust tradition unless I have a strong argument against it.

But then ultimately I only trust them because they seem confirmed by my own reason and conscience. If they were obviously wrong, I’d leave the church.

One warrant that the Catholic Church is the truest path is Jesus’s repeated injunction, “by their fruits you shall know them.” What path has produced the most visible knowledge, the most just societies, and the most artistic beauty?

I think it is clear that “Western civilization” has. In other words, Christendom. Christendom has brought us science, and democracy, and human rights, and Shakespeare, Dante, Cervantes, da Vinci, Michelangelo, and the rest. The Catholic Church in particular has always been intimate with the beautiful and has always fostered beauty. To become a practicing Catholic is to make your life a work of art.

Do you fear submitting yourself to the authority of priests? The Protestants and the Muslims will say so.

I do too. I too do not trust priests, or bishops, or even, sadly the present pope.

Humility before men can easily be, and usually is, idolatry. How humble was Jesus himself? Declaring himself the Messiah, which is to say, the rightful king of the world, then actually declaring himself God? Surely that sounds a bit cheeky to the casual observer.

How humble were the prophets, to their fellow man, denouncing the king, their countrymen, and the government relentlessly?

I like William Blake’s slogan: “humble before God, not before men.”

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

How to Respond to the Trump Tariffs

 

Daniel O'Connell achieved Catholic emancipation by following the Gospel
advice to "turn the other cheek."

A friend hasasked me what I would do in response to Trump’s tariff threats were I thegovernment of Canada.

Makingthreats, talking tough and retaliating with counter-tariffs is insane. Canadais sure to lose in a trade war. I fear Ford and the Liberals are actually preparedto destroy Canada for the sake of getting themselves re-elected one more time.

This is aperfect example of where Jesus’s advice to turn the other cheek applies. When one is dealing with anopponent of overwhelming superiority, the only hope is to appeal to theirconscience. Luckily, Americans have a good conscience and are already well-disposedto Canada.

1. Call Trump’s bluff in a dramaticfashion. Declare a referendum, to be held in a year, on Canada joining the US.As a government, stay strictly neutral, if you cannot openly favour the idea.Do nothing to restrict American money or influence from getting involved in thecampaign.

The referendum would almost certainly fail:current polls suggest only 10-15% of Canadians would support annexation. If itpassed, I doubt the Americans would let us in anyway. And if they did let usin, frankly, not a problem. They’re a democracy; we’d be fine.
The referendum campaign would, one hopes,inspire a lot of American speakers and opinion leaders to talk up Canada, inhopes of getting Canada to vote for annexation. And this would influence otherAmericans to be more sympathetic to our plight. Overall, this will impress onthe Americans that we are love them, are a part of them, not “other.”
And it would make many Americans feelresponsible for letting us down if they refused us entry. We would be buildingmoral capital.

2.       A charm offensive. Enlist a real “TeamCanada” of Canadian celebrities with a large following in the US, and ideallycachet with Trump’s base, to go on talk shows and podcasts talking about howclose Canadians and Americans have always been. And about growing up in Canada.Comedians are especially good for this, because people generally love anyonewho makes them laugh, and Canada has many comedians popular in the US. We wantto win the hearts and minds of the American public. We want them to identify withus and our lives, to see us as the same as Americans, growing up with Captain Kangaroo,the Muppets, and so forth, admiring American culture. Maybe pining for thingsthey had in America that we did not get.

We shouldalso develop our own ads, tugging at the heart-strings, with swelling music andnostalgic video clips, reminding Americans of times when Canadian hockey fans sangthe American national anthem, when Newfoundlanders welcomed stranded American airpassengers, when the Canadian embassy in Iran sheltered American diplomats, scenesof fighting together in Afghanistan, Korea, WWII, WWI; sharing joy at VE Day.How baseball, football, and basketball all have Canadian as well as Americanroots. There’s a lot of material available.

3. Regardless of Trump or the Americans,we ought to want to stop all fentanyl traffic and keep terrorists out. Canadiansare dying. We should immediately offer to set up a high-level joint task forcewith the USA, like we once did with NORAD.

The Americansalso want us to spend more money on defense; but this is also in our own nationalinterest, and our NATO commitment. We need to be able to defend our Arctic. Whyfight over it? Let’s do it.

4. Trump goes on about the tradedeficit. There are a number of major “trade irritants” the Americans have longcomplained about. But what they want is actually, in many cases, also what is bestfor Canadians. Our own government, pandering to special interests, is the problem.They are suckering us by appealing to patriotism, the last refuge of ascoundrel.

a.       We should want to drop “supplymanagement” for dairy and eggs: it is not just unfair to US farmers, it is acruel levy on the Canadian poor, a huge transfer of wealth from the poor to therich.

b.       We should lift restrictions on USinvestment in Canada. These are good for a few oligarchs, because they limit competition.But refusing investment is obviously bad for the Canadian economy, hobbles job growth,limits choices, and raises prices. We should have the courage to compete openlyin the entire North American market.

c.       We should end all “Canadian content”regulations. Americans see these as unfair trade practices, and in the age ofinfinite information over the internet, they are unenforceable, intolerablerestrictions on freedom of speech, and only cripple Canadian media outlets inthe market.

d.       We should limit the use of anyChinese parts in Canadian manufactures resold on to the US market. It is morein our interests than in those of the US to ensure that anything labelled “madein Canada” is actually made in Canada.

e.       We should stop subsidizing anycompanies or industries. Any such subsidies are trade irritants. They look likeunfair competition to the Americans, because they really are unfaircompetition. They are also almost guarantees of graft and government corruption,distorting market forces, and transferring wealth from the poor to the rich.

We probably don’t want to do all this unilaterally,instead of holding them back as bargaining chips in trade negotiations. But weshould be negotiating right now: on the 25% tariffs. Throw some meat on thetable as an immediate offer in exchange for removing these tariffs.

By doing all this, we will win the Americanpublic over to our side. And they will also see thir prices rising due totariffs. Together, these should make keeping the tariffs on politicallyunsustainable for an American government.

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

Kennedy on SSRIs

 

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is getting a lot of heat during his current confirmation hearings for having criticized SSRI antidepressants in the past. Specifically, he is alleged to have said that they cause school shootings, and that they are addictive.

Obviously, there is a lot of money for drug companies in SSRIs, because people who take them are usually on them for a long time, often for life. We ought to be suspicious.

Doctors, in turn, like pills; it is their entire business. You go to your doctor with a complaint, and they will prescribe one, even if they do not believe it will do anything. You have to keep the customer satisfied. They pride themselves on the “placebo effect.”

And insurers, patients, and the government like pills too. A pill for depression looks ideal: no expensive and intrusive therapy sessions with a psychiatrist. No need for any life changes.

Moreover, “Big Pharma,” the drug companies, finance the campaigns of many politicians. Their advertising sustains a lot of the media. So they are in a position to silence any doubts, as they seem to be doing here.

We ought to begin from the suspicion that SSRIs are being overprescribed. 

RFK Jr. is right. 

Whenever another mass shooting happens, there is always an outcry to ban guns. Which is either folly or deliberate misdirection. There are lots more guns in private hands in countries like Switzerland or Israel than in the US, yet no more school shootings there. The number of mass shootings per capita is actually pretty constant country to country across the developed world, despite varying gun laws and levels of gun ownership. Even take away all guns: those intent on mass murder can resort to cars, or IEDs. The UK government has actually, absurdly, recently introduced a bill banning the sale of knives. Guns are not the issue.

Those wanting to defend the right to bear arms then resort to blaming the shootings on mental illness. After all, the shooters invariably have a history of mental illness. So what is needed is not fewer guns, but more money for mental health. These people must get treatment.

This idea, however, is equally folly or misdirection. The killers have a history of mental illness. That means they have been diagnosed; they are in the system; they have been receiving treatment. Treatment has not worked. The incidence of mass shootings or mass killings is consistent across jurisdictions despite varying levels of investment in the mental health system. Lack of treatment is not the problem.

Further, this association of violence with mental illness is profoundly discriminatory towards the mentally ill. The mentally ill as a demographic are actually statistically less likely to be violent than the general population. Stigmatizing them as violent and dangerous gives them more stigma and more problems when they are already the most stigmatized and suffering among us. It is scapegoating the most vulnerable.

RFK has rightly deduced that the problem has to be with the treatment. These killers are all taking SSRIs.

And it is not hard to see what is going on.

So far as we know, there is no such underlying disease as “depression.” This is true of everything we class as “mental illness.” What we have is a set of symptoms, listed in the DSM, which may be caused by all kinds of underlying conditions. We prescribe SSRIs for a certain set of symptoms, called “depression,” in the same way we might prescribe aspirin for pain or fever, without knowing what is causing the pain or fever.

This means SSRIs are at best only suppressing symptoms while leaving the underlying condition to fester and perhaps grow. Without SSRIs, the problem might instead be addressed and solved. Instead, tragically, modern psychiatry, given their present SSRI approach, expects most with symptoms of depression to recur in time and only get worse as the patient ages.

The initial thesis on which they were introduced, that depression was caused by a “chemical imbalance in the brain,” specifically a lack of serotonin, has been disproven by subsequent research. If they work, we do not know why they work.

But what they do, subjectively, is to deaden emotions. This includes happiness, love, laughter, but also unpleasant emotions like anxiety, fear, and sorrow—the symptoms labelled “depression.” 

This means that, rather like alcohol, they also deaden the conscience. They deaden feelings of guilt.

This is good for those feeling unwarranted anxiety and sorrow, usually as a result of being abused. 

This is bad for those feeling anxiety and sorrow due to their past bad actions or their overblown self-esteem being frustrated by the realities of life.

The former, when they feel bad, want to kill themselves. They see themselves as worthless. The SSRIs, unfortunately, can make them more likely to commit suicide, by taking away their fears and inhibitions. This problem is well known.

The latter, when they feel bad, want to kill anyone around them, as many other people as possible. Hence, mass shootings.

And the awful truth is that either form of “depression” does have a cure, that SSRIs, psychiatry, and the pharmaceutical industry suppress.

It is called religion. Religion can recalibrate one’s sense of values and self-worth. It has worked for thousands of years. 

We have been moving away from it in recent years, largely due to the rise of psychology and psychiatry as a “scientific” substitute.

Mass murder is only one of the results; along with a rising tide of depression, mental illness, drug addictions, social breakdown, family breakdown, and suicide.

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