Stephen Roney's Blog, page 43

Trudeau Is Leaving

 

Just putting down a marker.

It looks as though Justin Trudeau is planning to resign.Which is only sensible on his part. Dominic LeBlanc is being set up to replacehim; and he is probably the Liberals’ best play.

Will it save the Liberal Party?

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

The Canadian Political Landscape

 

A recent discussion prompted me to outline my understanding of the Canadian political landscape.

There are only two coherent views of government, two coherent ideologies. One sees the state as like a family. Everybody is responsible for everybody else. The government is in the role of parent. It has a moral duty to do whatever it can for the good of the whole, in trust, and to help everyone in need. This is the classic conservative view, as articulated by Edmund Burke. 

The other is that the government is in the role of a contractor. There is a social contract, under which the government has specific responsibilities. The government is not our parent, because all men are created equal. We freely hire it to do a specific job. Whenever possible, we decide for ourselves, because we are all adults and free will is the reason we exist. This is the classic liberal view, as articulated by Jefferson or Lord Acton. 

I am a liberal, and have always been a liberal. My views have not changed since adolescence. Then, these views seemed to put me on the left; now, they seem to put me on the right. Left and right have lost all meaning, it seems.

Liberalism has often been confused with sexual libertinism, which is something else. The proper liberal definition of liberty is that given by Pope St. John Paul II: freedom is freedom to do what is right. After the right to life, the prime and essential human right is the right to conscience; because without free will, we cannot act as moral beings. Sinful acts are not expressions of freedom, because we become enslaved to the sin. That is what vice is.

Government must not decide for us on moral questions.

The liberal will not want laws against sodomy or pornography, for example, unless their exercise can be shown to infringe on the rights of others. But he or she will certainly not want the state endorsing sodomy or pornography, or giving them special privileges, or a public forum. Forcing others to endorse sodomy, pornography, or the like; publicly funding them; or teaching them to children in state schools as positive values; is profoundly illiberal, as it forces some to go against their conscience. Laws against sodomy or pornography are less problematic, since nobody is bound by conscience to engage in masturbation or homosexual sex.

Liberalism requires opposition to abortion. The right to life is fundamental.

“Hate speech” laws are profoundly illiberal, as well as antidemocratic.

The entire edifice on which liberalism is built, is the doctrine of human equality and the importance of free will. These are Christian principles; you could also say Jewish. Without Christianity, without ethical monotheism, they collapse. Any government that does not acknowledge this and support the Jewish and Christian religions is illiberal. This does not mean obstructing freedom of religion for any citizen.

The rap against liberalism is that it does not provide for the less fortunate, as conservatism argues for. The liberal response is that government entitlements subvert morality by supplanting charity. Private charity is a moral act; there is no morality in paying taxes. Government entitlements also subvert free will by teaching dependence; they violate the doctrine of human equality; and they violate property rights.

That said, nobody should be left homeless or to starve or to die from lack of medical care. This is no departure from liberal principles; a basic social safety net follows from the right to life. The idea, currently popular, of having a Guaranteed Annual Income actually originated with Milton Friedman’s “negative income tax.” There is also a liberal argument, made by Friedman, that education should be free to the individual, including college or university, on the principle of human equality and no inherited privilege.

A liberal position logically calls for a strong defense. Government exists to protect our rights from being infringed. This includes protecting us from foreign enemies. It also implies support for alliances, the concept of collective security: that is exactly what government is for on the individual level.

As a liberal, I do not want government legislating morality, because that interferes with the exercise of free will, and therefore with the human mission to become a moral being.

Moreover, it violates the principle of human equality. There are no superior beings competent to know better than the individual what is best for every individual. Were there, there is no mechanism to ensure they are the ones that end up in government.

But I can respect the conservative or Red Tory position. Sometimes, with an ill-educated or ill-informed electorate, or in times of social chaos, when the structures of civil society are absent, it is perhaps best.

Now, given this definition, the Canadian Liberal Party is not liberal. The liberals, as opposed to the Liberals, are now what in Canada are called “Blue Tories.” 

But the Liberal Party is not conservative either. Those are the “Red Tories.” Like the conservatives, the Liberals want big government, and want to restrict free will and the individual--liberty. But the Liberals, and the modern left generally, are a third thing, not a coherent philosophy of government but a collective madness, inchoate rage, an urge to control everything, kill everyone and then commit suicide. Nazism, Marxism, wokeism, postmodernism, Mao's Cultural Revolution; it is all the same thing. There is no God, nothing is real, there is no right and wrong, gimme.

I believe Justin Trudeau is the worst prime minister Canada has ever had. The first qualification for office has to be wanting what is best for the country. Trudeau has no allegiance to Canada; he is on record saying there is no Canadian cultural mainstream. Canada to him is no more than a geographical location. The second qualification is mere competence; Trudeau has no relevant experience or education and no idea what he is doing. He is only play-acting. The third qualification is honesty, and Trudeau is as corrupt as he thinks he can get away with. Scandal after scandal, and no remorse.

All this before even getting to his political ideology, which is just the aforesaid collective tantrum; and then his specific policies. He has Canada on track to join the Third World. I suggested this to colleagues in New Blue six months ago, and to them that seemed hyperbolic. Now everyone in my feeds online seems to be saying it. The figures on falling productivity are obvious.

Trudeau has also done a remarkable job of destroying Canada’s international standing, built up with blood, sweat, and tears over the years. I am particularly sensitive to this, as a Canadian who lived for so long abroad. Our reputation abroad was one foundation of our prosperity, vastly underestimated. Canada had widespread and favourable brand recognition. Trudeau is an instinctive bully; he likes to pick fights and try to dominate. And he is too stupid not to pick fights with international leaders he encounters. Nor does he care about the damage he is doing.

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

Boris the Cat

 

Friend Xerxes tells the story of Boris the Cat, a companion animal on a solo cruise around the world. 

His column is titled “The Absence of a Happy Ending.” With an added “[Reader alert: This column is a downer]”

Somewhere in the South Atlantic, Boris fell overboard, and was not seen again.

“When things go wrong, we’re told to have faith. As Julian of Norwich once assured us, ‘All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.’

            “I wonder if Boris would agree with her.”

As though this advice was for cats. Anyone who’s had a cat as a kid could have told him, cats do not live long in any event.

So why this melodramatic reaction, particularly when men, women, and children are dying daily in Gaza, or the Ukraine, and gruesomely in Israel on October 7? And yet it is the unmet cat, who died many years ago, that occupies Xerxes’s thoughts?

Jung once said, sentimentality is a scaffolding concealing brutality. Hitler loved his dogs. 

I fear we no longer care about humanity. Making much of “nature” and cats and the like is a scaffolding concealing our own brutality from ourselves, at times when in our hearts we know we are guilty of it. We reassure ourselves by manifesting exaggerated delicacy. Goodness! We wouldn’t swat a flea! We lament the death of every cat!

Death, after all, is every cat’s ending. “Death, a necessary end, will come when it will come.” 

The conventional belief is that an animal’s consciousness, when it dies, simply ceases to be. Lights out. That is not tragic: it is neutral. Sad because this cat’s life was a few years shorter than it might have been? 

Then where is the concern over aborted children?

Boris may have briefly felt panic. There is a Jewish prayer, “Lord, don’t let me die while I’m still alive.” I imagine that is a prayer against panic, against facing death unexpectedly. If so, Boris’s panic must have been brief. Cats are not renowned swimmers. A small furry animal in a turbulent sea? 

And if this is Xerxes’s or his readers’ main concern, do they spare a thought for the terror of animals led to slaughter, whose meat they eat every day?

Xerxes then makes Boris's death a parable to suggest that we invented heaven to console ourselves, because we want a happy ending.

But that does not work. Xerxes probably knows this in his own heart. He has a Christian education. Animals, according to traditional Christian belief, based on Aristotle, do not go to heaven. If heaven were only wishful thinking, we would surely insist that Boris did, and we would have our happy ending. Why does Xerxes choose an example that does not work?

Because his real point is a concealed one. He wants to believe we are all like cats, and cease to be at death. That is his wish for a happy ending. 

Because the alternative, as Xerxes neglects to note, is not heaven. All people do not go to heaven. In fact, in most traditional views of the afterlife, few do. There is an alternative destination, or perhaps two or three. Or, for Buddhists or Hindus, an infinite number of possible destinations, of future lives.

And moderns in general try hard not to believe in God or the afterlife, and insist that man is no better than an animal, a cat, and exalt nature, because of a guilty conscience, and terror at the just consequences of our actions.

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

World War III

 

World War III seems to be trending. The recent missile attack by Iran on Israel has been billed by many commentators as its beginning.

It is not. As a matter of pure logistics, Iran can’t invade Israel, and Israel can’t invade Iran. Missiles are expensive, and Israel is pretty good at making Iran waste them—little payoff for the payload. Drones may be a continuing problem; but more for Israeli civilians than for the Israeli military. 

A World War tends to require grand alliances of nations. Instead, this may increase Iran’s isolation. Iran, the Shi’ite power, is the primary strategic threat to the Sunni Arab nations of the Persian Gulf and all points West, including the wealthy and militarily powerful Saudi Arabia. Iran has been meddling in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and the Palestinian territories. It has no natural allies. The big Arab states may take the opportunity to make common cause with Israel against their common enemy.

It may also increase opposition to the regime within Iran. A lot of the recent protest has been on the premise that the government has been spending money on foreign adventures while the people at home are starving. The current strike on Israel may be a show of power by a government that feels cornered; to cow their own people more than Israel.

https://x.com/elicalebon/status/1779685190941679979

I have Iranian friends. I have American friends who have visited Iran and spoken to people there. No Iranians seem to support the current regime. They are desperate for help from abroad to overthrow it, and wondering why it is not coming.

There may be an informal alliance of convenience among Iran, Russia, and China, but they are motivated by no common ideology and no common interests. In fact, their interests conflict.

The real danger is that each local war—Ukraine, now Gaza—gives incentive for the next, as the West’s resources get stretched. Now might be the time for Venezuela to invade Guyana and get away with it; now might be the time for China to invade Taiwan and get away with it.

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

Just for Fun

 

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

Not Mincing Words

 

Pierre Poilievre makes his position on Gaza clear.

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

Scientology Was Right

 

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

Either/Or

 

Teaching a Chinese student the common logical fallacies, we came to this example:

 

He became confused. “Isn’t that ‘scare tactic’? I don’t see it as an option.”

Which tells you something of the difference between Chinese and American culture. He assumed that supporting the president was indeed synonymous with being a patriotic Chinese, and that if you did not support the president, you were in serious trouble.

And now we must note that Justin Trudeau thinks the same way as the Chinese authorities. Those who do not support him are unCanadian and unacceptable. He accuses them of being under foreign influence, Russian, American, or Nazi; and they deserve to have serious trouble visited on them. They bank accounts seized, their licenses cancelled, held in prison without trial. 

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

As Others See Us

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

The Promised Land

 

An Igbo bride.

Canada’s manifest destiny is to be a home for refugees.

That is more or less how it all began, with the UE Loyalists; and continued, with the Highland Clearances and the Irish famine. Even Loius Riel, contrary to popular misinformation that he was trying to keep the land for the aboriginals, had exactly this vision: Canada as a home for refugees. It is the great thing Canada, with its expanses, can do for the world. In so doing, we not only help end the suffering, but also reduce tensions in the land from which the refugees come, since they do not want them. Often, their home countries would be happy to cooperate with “getting them off their hands.”

Imagine, for example, the good Canada could have done if, in the 1930s, we had opened our doors to Jews coming from Germany. 

This is best for Canada as well. Those who come from places they are welcome are most likely to make a firm commitment to Canada and its culture and development. They have no divided loyalties. 

In order to do so, we should stop squandering our immigration quota on mere economic migrants. We should get back to huddled masses yearning to breathe free.

We should favour Christians coming from non-Christian countries. In absolute numbers, Christians are the most oppressed religious group on Earth. At the same time, favouring Christians makes economic and cultural sense. Churches are falling empty and needing to be repurposed or knocked down, the religious art lost or destroyed. This is an economic blow, and a destruction of a significant part of our heritage. Immigrant Christians from other countries could gratefully fill those pews, and keep the structures in good condition.

We should also give absolute preference to all Jews. They are and always have been discriminated against everywhere, and are not safe, as recent events demonstrate, in Israel. This too is to our benefit: Jews are good for the economy and the culture wherever they go. And beautiful old synagogues are also falling empty.

Smaller religions lacking a homeland generally are worthy of unrestricted immigration: the Yazidis, Bahai, Sikhs, Falun Gong, and Parsis.

Muslims are a special case. Although persecuted in many countries, Islam is also uniquely constitutionally prone to persecuting other faiths when it can. No other faiths are legal, for example, in Saudi Arabia. Allowing large-scale Muslim immigration can threaten the security of other faiths in Canada.

There is also ethnic persecution. Tigrayans from Ethiopia; Hakka Chinese from Southeast Asia; Igbo from Nigeria. One group in obvious jeopardy, although it is unfashionable to say so, is “white” South Africans. 

We should not be opening doors to refugees from wars, as opposed to genocides or persecutions. Admitting refugees from both sides, who are simply fleeing the carnage of war, is likely to import the tensions that led to war, and extend the violence to Canadian soil. Admitting refugees from just one side drains it of fighting men to defend it; and those disloyal to their original country in time of need cannot be expected to become model Canadians.

Canadian embassies around the world could be assigned the task of determining what local groups might deserve such special immigrant status; and even coordinate with the local government to remove these “undesirables” without conflict.

Canada would be the richer for it.

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