Stephen Roney's Blog, page 272

The London Riots

Yesterday there were “rowdy demonstrations” in London, protesting the Conservative election victory.

I, for one, find this deeply sinister.

Public protests are not a good thing, and should be done only with serious justification. They inevitably harm innocent parties: shopkeepers, taxpayers, passersby trying to get somewhere. They easily spiral into violence and destruction of property. They are inherently an offense against public order.

They can at times be justified. The justification is to present an important or urgent issue not otherwise acknowledged.

Given a functioning democracy, a free press, and freedom of speech, such situations should be rare.

It is possible even with a free press for all parties to hold the same position on some issue, and all major media outlets, preventing a full debate. In Canada, a current example that immediately comes to mind is abortion. Another was the Charlottetown Accord, which promised to radically change the constitution without public debate.

Immediately protesting the results of a free election obviously does not meet these criteria. It is the perfect counter-example. It seeks to shut down debate.

And it was an election in which the views protested for seemed fully represented: those opposed to Brexit had a clear choice with the Liberal Democrats. Those who wanted to move to nationalization and to the left had Labour, with an unusually radical platform. Yet, obviously from the signage, it was those who backed Labour and opposed Brexit who were protesting.

They were protesting, then, against democracy. They were agitating for dictatorship. This is where the left has gotten to.

Which raises an eternal problem: how much accommodation must a liberal democracy give to movements that seek to subvert liberal democracy and human rights?

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

Christmas Music by Joni Mitchell

Joni Mitchell's moving Christmas song. But in an unfamiliar version.




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

The Morning After

Boris
Two great news events yesterday: Boris Johnson’s majority win, and Andrew Scheer’s resignation.

Johnson’s win? Yet again, the polls were wrong. They saw a tightening race, and a bare majority. Not only are polls usually wrong any more, they are always wrong in the same direction: in underestimating the vote on the right. I think this is “shy Tory syndrome”: as the left-wing media try to portray ordinary conservative points of view as intolerable, people are less inclined to admit them to a stranger. Thank God for the secret ballot.

Johnson’s victory comes as a relief, but does not put me in the mood for celebration. At last, Brexit should get done, and the UK can start to deal with other issues. But it has been ridiculously difficult and prolonged. I think Churchill’s adage applies: the people can always be counted on to do the right thing—once they’ve tried every conceivable other alternative.

Johnson himself is a loose cannon, like Trump. Who knows how it will go? At least, he should be immensely entertaining, and that is worth a lot.

Andrew Scheer’s resignation, too, does not cheer me. I accept that it is best for him to go. As noted here, he never had the instincts of a leader. And his constant smile suggests mendacity—a mendacity that was beginning to show. Little scandals here and there. But I cannot see changing leaders as the solution for the Conservatives. Max is gone. I see no one in the wings who stands out.

On the model of past Canadian political experience, what the Tories need is a Trump. Canadian politics always works that way, with about a seven year lag. Justin Trudeau was Canada’s Obama, just as his father was Canada’s Kennedy.

The UK now also follows the pattern: they have found their Trump equivalent in Boris Johnson. And Ontario voted in Doug Ford on the resemblance.

But I see no potential Trumps in caucus. They need someone with a steel spine and an engaging manner, and they need someone who speaks both official languages. This is a rare combination.

Kevin O’Leary saw himself in that mirror last time, but he lacked the French. Pierre Poilievre has the spine and the French, but lacks the engaging manner. Rona Ambrose lacks the engaging manner, and her French is weak. Lisa Raitt has the engaging manner and perhaps the French, but perhaps not the spine. And she has lost her seat.

If not within the caucus, is there someone from outside who might fit? Trump, after all, came from outside. So did Brian Mulroney.

There might be some business guy out there who could do it; nobody comes to my mind.

But here’s a thought: how about Jordan Peterson?

He has in the past expressed interest in politics. He has star quality, and probably decent French. He obviously connects with people.

I am not myself a big fan of his psychology; but that is beside the point.
'Od's Blog: Catholic and Clear Grit comments on the passing parade.

Flying Monkey!

I can personally vouch for this little item being a hit with kids on Christmas Day. I picked one up years ago in the Dubai airport Duty Free Shop. Hours of stupid fun.

And a hidden message for some of us. Google "lfying monkey." You may be surprised.




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

I Wonder

For Gerry.


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

How Dare They?

Time magazine has named Greta Thunberg their Person of the Year for 2019.

Here is an example of how evil people masquerade as pro-children, while doing children harm.

What do you suppose the long-term effects on Greta Thunberg are likely to be, from having been named international Person of the Year at age 16?

And for no enduring talent, just for the extreme and emotional tone of her speeches?

Where does she go from here?

How does her life from here avoid feeling to her like a fast or slow collapse?

Had they just put a gun to her head, it would have been more merciful.

To top it off, Thunberg’s claims about global warming are obviously over the top.

How is it going to look for her in twenty years, or thirty, if she lives that long, and her harsh vision has been proven wrong? If anyone remembers her, it is likely to be as a figure of ridicule.

“How dare you?”

And those promoting her now have to know this. Not even the IPCC scientists would endorse Thunberg’s alarmist claims.

And people are applauding all this as it is done to her.

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

Take This Simple Nazi Test

A classic narcissist lie.
In listing the signs you are dealing with a bad person, one of Jesus’s “goats,” I left out one obvious indication.

8. They will want often to shut down conversation.

This is a sure sign of a guilty conscience: someone wants to stop others talking if they know they are in the wrong.

Which brings up, in turn, the reflection that we are obviously now in the midst of an upsurge of evil. Hence the growing wave of censorship.

We are also, tellingly enough, seeing an upsurge in antisemitism, postmodern relativism, anti-religious sentiment, and ecofascism. It all suggests a lot of people with a guilty conscience, and determined not to repent.

I trace it all back to the “sexual revolution,” and more specifically to legalized abortion.

And I see a chilling parallel.

Back when Victoria died, at the turn of the 19th century, there was a similar period of libertinage, the “Edwardian Era.” This earlier sexual revolution extended into the 20s, and was especially a hallmark of Weimar Germany.

And where did that lead us?

Where did that lead Germany?

Into brazen, undisguised evil on the mass level. Nazism was a popular melding of anti-semitism, ecofascism, moral relativism, and anti-religious sentiment. And murderous on an industrial scale.

Is that where this ends?

Or are we already there?

You might have wondered, if you are an honest sort, where you really would have stood had you been alive in Nazi Germany. Would you really have been a Schindler? Or would you have been a “good German” and just gone along? Or even a Nazi?

There is an easy test.

What is your stance on abortion?

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

The Troubles of Children

Wise words from W.B. Yeats:

We should not make light of the troubles of children. They are worse than ours, because we can see the end of our trouble and they can never see any end.

Of his own childhood:

I know that I am very unhappy and have often said to myself, “when you grow up, never talk as grown-up people do of the happiness of childhood.” I may have already had the night of misery when, having prayed for several days that I might die, I had begun to be afraid that I was dying and prayed that I might live.

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

How to Spot a Goat in the Wild

Michelangelo's "Last Judgment."
The world is composed of two kinds of people: good and bad.

If you dislike this analysis, your problem is not with me. Take it up with Jesus and the New Testament. Take it up with God.

This being so, it is important to spot the bad guys. Before you find the knife in your back.

Here are a few pointers I have learned from hard experience:

1. Beware anyone who is seriously critical of anyone being “judgmental.” Obviously enough, those who are most opposed to judgment are those conscious of having done wrong—and the more important they consider the issue, the graver their sins must be.

Note too that anyone who condemns another for being “judgmental” is automatically outing themselves as a hypocrite. They are being judgmental of the one being judgmental.

2. Beware anyone highly critical of all religions (or other beliefs) other than their own.

More naturally, bad people are against all religion—it implies judgment. But there is also strategic value for them in pretending to be religious. This is so natural that “Pharisee”—religious authority—becomes almost a synonym for a bad person in the New Testament. The very worst people are liable to be rabbis, Catholic cardinals, Buddhist monks, imams, and so forth. This has been known since New Testament times, and following the news shows it is still so.

Their attitude towards the religions of others is the giveaway. Their base assumption is that, because they profess religion X, they are exempt from moral requirements. It follows that they will hold anyone not professing religion X to be bad and damned. It is the necessary corollary.

A good person will recognize and honour good people of other faiths.

This rule can also be applied to other fields. Anyone who demonizes all those who do not hold the same political beliefs as they do is acting on the same impulse. They are hiding some grave guilt. Anyone who demonizes those who do not adhere to the same psychology as they do—this too seems a growing phenomenon—is again masking some guilt.

In theory, at least, there are limits to this principle—some political ideologies, religions, and potentially psychologies can be objectively immoral. But there is something wrong if it is asserted to be all but one, or one narrow set of beliefs.

3. Beware anti-Semites.

This might sound arbitrary, but I find this most consistent of all. Hating Jews is a sure sign of a bad person.

This makes sense theologically: if God chose the Jews as a light unto the nations, turning against the Jews is rejecting God.

But putting aside theological considerations, it is objective fact that Jews left alone are consistently better educated, more successful, and wealthier than the surrounding populations. Higher IQ alone may explain it.

Accordingly, any anti-Jewish sentiment is most likely to be an expression of envy, a deadly sin.

4. Some will suggest that a love of animals is a clear sign of a good person. It is not. Like religion, it is too convenient as a cover for a bad person. Precisely because everyone thinks it is a clear sign of a good person. Hitler was a vegetarian and a big animal lover.

To the contrary, anyone who is too extravagant and aggressive about asserting their love for animals is probably a bad person. They are covering for something. Beware the aggressive vegans and the ecofascists. The best test is: are they making demands on others?

5. The same logic applies to those who make a big deal of their love for small children. All the worst dictators know enough to pose for propaganda photos surrounded by small children. The best test is whether they advocate things that, while immediately pleasing to children, are not in their long-term interests. All toys and candy, say, and no discipline. Anyone who spoils a child is revealing their own sense of guilt. And their fundamental rejection of morality.

6. Beware anyone who makes a big deal about having read Nietzsche. They are declaring themselves free of all moral constraints.

More blatantly, anyone who asserts that “there is no right or wrong” is doing so. And some these days—postmodernists—do this openly.

7. Beware anyone who seems to be always smiling and friendly. This is especially true of women; far fewer men are always smiling, and they are more readily suspected if they try. Someone who is always smiling is necessarily wearing a mask, and hiding their true feelings. Which can accordingly be assumed to be malicious.

I’m sure there are more. Suggestions welcome.


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

What is Mental Illness?

New podcast episode.



What is Mental Illness?




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