Stephen Roney's Blog, page 23

Shane McGowan's Funeral

 

Happy Christmas.

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

The Feminist Delusion

 

Pandora
It is a good general principle that anything stated emphatically is unlikely to be true. No one, after all, feels the need to carry placards in the street and shout loudly through a bullhorn “grass is green.”

I knew OJ was a murderer when he answered the question “Did you kill your wife” with “I absolutely did not kill her.” An innocent man would not have said “absolutely.”

This is one reason why the common consensus is almost always wrong. It is formed by those who shout the loudest, and those who simply want to keep the peace will go along.

“Methinks the lady doth protest too much” is thus a good principle.

An example that comes to mind: “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” The women’s movement, from the beginning, insisted that men are of no use to women, and are the disposable sex. A woman could do anything for herself that a man could do.

I submit that women need men more than men need women. The women’s movement began because men no longer needed wives. With mod cons in the home, housework was at best a part-time job. A bachelor could manage it for himself. Hugh Hefner realized this, and launched the “Playboy philosophy.” Women were needed only for sex. Betty Friedan’s essential complaint in “The Feminine Mystique” was that she was bored to death in the suburbs having nothing to do.

As luck would have it, men now hardly need women for sex either, thanks to the ready availability of internet porn. And are beginning to realize it. And women are at last beginning to panic. That they did not decades ago is a testament to how fully women are programmed to follow rather than think things out for themselves: they were perfect victims for feminism’s “consciousness raising” which taught them to scorn men. Leaving, as JD Vance controversially put it, several sad and bitter generations of crazy cat ladies. I know many women like this. If you are honest, and my age, you probably do too.

Women need men not just for protection against other, possibly predatory, men. Nor do they need them just for protection against the forces of nature. Nor to support children financially. Government and the bureaucracy happily stepped in to take over those roles. They were delighted to do so, because they wanted power, and this was a major extension to their power. Now “the personal is political.” In this, feminism has always been essentially totalitarian.

Women also, and more vitally, need men spiritually. Women are programmed by God or evolution to seek and need guidance, and not to think for themselves. This is exactly what you are not allowed to think or say--because it is obviously true. This female mental flexibility is essential in order to form the family bond—the alternative would be constant arguments and breakups, to the great emotional detriment of both parties, and the great hazard of children’s welfare. Which is of course pretty much what feminism has brought us. 

That women need men as a mental and emotional anchor is why traditionally women were married off at an early age, while men commonly married later. Men could stand years alone while they built up a nest. A woman really could not do for any time without a husband or a father. Women without a strong lead tend to lose direction, and flounder. There is a reason girls, more than boys, report a difficult adolescence, with risks of suicide, self-harm, anorexia, and depression. In that gap between guidance by father and guidance by husband, they are cast adrift. It is also the reason ghosts and table-knocking, “spiritualist” phenomena, have since Victorian times been understood to centre somehow around some adolescent girl in the home. It is the reason irrational emotional outbursts and even dramatic delusions and hallucinations used to be generically called “hysteria,” from the Greek word for uterus. Young and single, or abandoned, women, were prone to them. It is the reason witchcraft was considered a primarily female preoccupation in Europe, usually involving old and unmarried women living alone; as shamanism is a female occupation in Korea today. This is again why Saint Paul did not want women speaking in Church, and told them to “obey your husband.” Why traditional Jewish or Muslim jurisprudence required two female witnesses but just one male. It is why women are not ordained as priests. It is why many cultures make some mythic woman straying beyond male oversight the source of all trouble entering the world: Eve in the Bible, Pandora in Greek myth, Sophia in gnostic cosmology. There are similar legends among the North American Indians (“First Nations”). 

Lacking the guidance of a designated man, women are liable to listen to serpents, or demons, or whatever ideology knocks on the front door. They are naturally programmed to be a “help-meet.”

We are acting with great recklessness in ignoring this truth in modern times. There should be no surprise that we are seeing a radical decline in women’s happiness and mental health.

And, worse, we are seeing civilization itself being knocked out of its orbit.

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

The Cherry Tree Carol

 

A special favourite of mine. I once made it the basis of a Christmas play. Sung here by three Jews.

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

On the Work of Christmas

 

An interesting take, by Howard Thurman, on the proper “Work of Christmas.”

“To find the lost,
To heal the broken,
To feed the hungry,
To release the prisoner,
To rebuild the nations,
To bring peace among brothers,
To make music in the heart.”

It is not quite what Jesus says in the Bible, however.

His actual commission to the apostles was to cast out demons, heal the sick, preach the gospel, and baptize. Don’t see that here.

“Find the lost” and “Heal the broken” might cover this, but they are at best open to misinterpretation. If “find the lost” equates to casting out demons, it seems an odd way to put it. In the Bible, God finds the lost sheep; it seems presumptuous to suggest the individual Christian should or could.

Feed the hungry? It is incumbent on us to feed the hungry, true. Not just for Christians, but as a universal moral obligation. But Jesus also said “The poor you shall have always with you”; and that worship must be given priority over giving money to the poor. This is not the essence of the Christian mission as such.

“Release the prisoner”? He never says that. He says we are to visit those in prison, which is quite different. This would presuppose that laws and legal systems are illegitimate. Not in the Bible.

It is true that in Luke 4, Jesus says of himself, that he has come “to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free.” But he is by this identifying himself as “the anointed one,” the Messiah, an exceptional circumstance--not giving a commission for Christians during normal times. He is describing a general amnesty, as in Jubilee year.

“Rebuild the nations?” Jesus stresses the separation of salvation and politics: “render to Caesar what is Caesar’s.” He confounded the Jewish expectation that the Messiah would be a political figure. He did not commission his followers to re-found the nation of Judea, nor to somehow reform the Roman Empire.

“Bring peace among brothers”? This is almost a flat contradiction of what Jesus does say: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’—a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.”

You might point to him saying, in the Beatitudes, “blessed are the peacemakers.” But the word translated as “peacemakers” is in the ancient documents most commonly applied to Roman Emperors. It seems therefore to refer to those who keep the peace in the sense of a police force or a “justice of the peace”: by mediating disputes fairly, without fear or favour, and by catching and punishing wrongdoers.

So—bring peace among brothers in that sense: by throwing one of them in prison. So much for “Releasing the prisoners.”

“To make music in the heart.” I think Jesus did command us to create art, when he told us to be salty and to shed light; as does the Book of Genesis, giving us a commission as gardeners and potters; as does the Book of Revelations, envisioning the New Jerusalem as a city made of precious gems. But why only “in the heart”? That seems to be there to negate the point. Music in the heart is not audible to others; art that is invisible is not art. Jesus commanded us instead to “let your light shine,” to let everyone see your works, to give light to everyone in the house; to be like a city on a hill.

So it is subtle. Am I nitpicking?

I think not. Friend Xerxes quotes Thurman's poem as justification for a program of left-wing "social justice" as he proper expression of Christianity.

It seems like an attempt to subvert the gospel to worldly ends.

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

On the Fourth Day of Christmas

 

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

The Annexation Tango

 

I am now seeing a growing chorus of Canadians on X pointing out the advantages of annexation to the States. 

Really. It only took a few days for Trump to create a groundswell of support for the idea. He has an uncanny knack for “reading the room”; in this case without even being in the room. What this really is, I think, is the essential talent of prophecy. As Blake said, the prophet does not really predict the future, but sees the present more clearly than others. Trump is uncommonly unburdened by the delusions that blind most of us.

The best argument to my mind is the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. It is not enough to get rid of Trudeau. Trudeau has demonstrated that the protections supposedly written into our Canadian Constitution are not worth the sheepskin they are printed on.

It’s all about what deal could be negotiated. Kevin O’Leary is proposing a union like the EU, with a shared currency and shared passport. Trump has suggested Canada come in as one state.

My problem with O’Leary’s suggestion is that, for such a union to be palatable to the much larger US, it would really mean the US made the rules, and Canadians would have no vote, so long as we stayed independent.

My problem with Trump’s suggestion is that it would offer no venue for Quebec to preserve its linguistic and cultural distinctiveness. And Canada would be underrepresented in Congress in relation to its population, with only two senators.

Ten new states, each of the provinces joining as states, would cause the least disruption and be easiest constitutionally. However, this would give Canada more representation than its current population would warrant; the US might well object. A compromise: five new states, and three new territories: British Columbia, Canada West (Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba), Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada (New Brunswick, PEI, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador). This would give Canada Senate representation matching its population, recognize regional differences, and preserve the name “Canada” in at least two new states. 

The main objection, Stateside, will no doubt be that Canadian voters tilt left, so they will skew American politics. But perhaps not; having experienced a hard left government in Trudeau, Canadians may be reliably right wing from now on. Just as Cuban refugees or Vietnamese are in the States, or the Poles and Hungarians are in the EU.

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

The Christmas Hangover

 '

The great day tis past us, and it's time for a bit of less celebratory music.

Christmas is a painful time for many.

A toast to all lost souls.

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

The H1-B Controversy

 

A controversy has blown up on the right over the H1-B visa program. Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy want to expand it, to recruit the best talent from overseas, particularly in the tech sector. Other MAGAnauts object that this suppresses wages and takes jobs away from Americans.

I am with Musk and Ramaswamy, if the tech sector is targeted narrowly. The US and Canada need immigrants. We need them because women are not having enough babies. The only question is how to select them. This is about the best way to select them. Being really good at IT, and to a lesser extent engineering, is a good test of raw IQ. This is why, in their hiring, the big tech firms don’t look at formal qualifications, but give prospective employees what is in effect an IQ test.

Aside from needing immigrants generally, the US and Canada need to maintain and expand their advantages in the high tech sector. Both their prosperity and their security depend on being ahead in this race. It makes good sense to use their attractiveness to immigrants to recruit the best talent.

Immigrants with high IQ are most desirable for many other reasons. Besides inventing things, they are likely to contribute greatly to the culture: to the arts. They will make more money than average and generate more revenue to fund government programs. They will start businesses and employ people. People with high IQ are far less likely to commit crimes and especially violent crimes. And hey, they will marry and improve the gene pool.

Those opposed to the idea in the US point to Canada, and say that Canada has tried a similar program, with our point system for prospective immigrants, and it has done nothing for the local high tech sector.

Canada’s system is indeed a cautionary tale. Unfortunately, it does not select for IQ, but for formal academic credentials. When this is applied to the Third World, where most are too poor to get to college or university, let alone a college of university in Canada, and qualifications can essentially be bought, it does not select for high IQ, but for membership in the current ruling class of that country. 

The reason countries in the Third World are poor is that they have a corrupt and selfish ruling class.

Such a system imports this corrupt and selfish culture directly into the Canadian upper classes, thereby importing all the problems of the Third World.

We need to consult the tech industry, and use the tests they have developed for job applicants, to pick immigrants.

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

Happy St. Stephen's Day!

 

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

Treasonous Talk?

 

Not shown: Greenland, Panama Canal Zone, Hawaii

Donald Trump appears to actually be serious about annexing Canada. He tweeted about it again several times on Christmas Day. So much for those who dismissed as a joke. Ha ha. He’s pushing the Overton window. Some Canadians on X are predictably getting vitriolic in response.

For my part, I think it is a good thing for all of us in Canada if Trump and the US administration shows interest in annexing Canada.

Justin Trudeau began clearly acting dictatorially in about 2021. I said then that the ultimate guarantee of Canadians’ freedom was the US: they would, one hoped, not tolerate it going too far. They would invade to save us. But I was worried then that they might not, that they might not care enough what happened to Canada, and would not want a large body of left-leaning voters. After all, they let Cuba go Communist.

So it is great news that the US really is interested. 

This holds Canadian governments’ jackboots to the fire; we now have a competitive marketplace for Canadians’ allegiances. Future Canadian governments will have to think twice about riding roughshod over the citizenry as they have been doing increasingly—even if they can rig the elections. The central government will also need to be more careful about bullying any one province, like Alberta. An individual province too could opt to leave for the US. In most cases, splitting Canada in two.

It is useful as a threat. And if it actually happened, it would be nothing catastrophic. We are culturally almost the same. I was just watching a video of the ball drop in Times Square. In earlier years, and I imagine still mostly now, everyone in Canada was glued to the set to watch this same scene every New Years: acknowledging that our shared culture was centred there. And at the moment the new year flashed, the unmistakable strains of “Auld Lang Syne” played by Guy Lombardo and his Royal Canadians at the Roosevelt ballroom. “The sweetest sound this side of heaven.” We were and are one culture, awkwardly divided by a hardening border. Should we be, any more than East and West Germany, or North and South Vietnam, or North and South Korea? The conflict that kept us apart, an argument between empire and republic, has been a dead letter for many generations.

 Lower taxes, batter protection for our rights, greater mobility rights and career opportunities, and better security against any real foreign threats. And some families no longer separated.

Trump is doing Canadians a big favour.

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