Stephen Roney's Blog, page 82
June 29, 2023
Affirmative Action in College Admissions Ruled Illegal in US
Great news. Let's hope that, as usual, little brother follows big brother's example.
Muslim Parents Protest
The leftist coalition is falling apart. It is losing women,Muslims, Latinos. The striking thing is that most leftists in power are notpulling back from their demand to expose children to transgenderism. Twomembers of Blair Higgs’s PC cabinet in New Brunswick actually resigned ratherthan accept that parental knowledge and permission is required for a child toformally change gender--despite polls showing Higgs has a winning issue. Antifa is in the streets calling Muslims “bigots”for objecting to drag shows in the schools. Despite calling anyone else who criticizesMuslims “Islamophobic.” This is the hill they are ready to die on. It is worthwondering why? What, for them, is at stake?
We used to call the ideology they are fighting for here “relativism.”Or, speaking more plainly, truth and morality are for them a matter of freechoice. The idea that a man can decide to be a woman is only the flagship forthis flotilla. Having sex with children is also, by this doctrine, perfectlyokay. It is this they want to defend; they want to defend the dream that theycan have and do anything they want. Any denial of this absolute freedom ofchoice is “fascist.” It is a wicked angel at the gates of Eden wielding a flamingsword.
Foolishly, they imagined that Islam was an ally. After all,they had a different set of beliefs from Christians, and so their presencediscounted absolutism, right? That proved all beliefs are arbitrary, so we mustall embrace relativism. Let them all immigrate in a flood. That ought to fixeverything.
But Muslims are of course absolutists. While they mightdisagree with Christians on details, broadly, their beliefs regarding realityand morality are the same, and relativism is the one unacceptable option.
The Al Qaeda terrorists did not fly into the Twin Towers toend the influence of Christian theism. They did so to end the immorality emanatingfrom the West, the unrestricted sex and moral license.
June 28, 2023
What about Lukashenko?
There was, we must assume, some secret deal between Putinand Prigozhin. We do not know what it was. Part of it was probably making Putin’sportion in the deal look better in public than in reality: Putin would needthis to stay in power, and would probably trade off other things for it.
But what about Lukashenko, who brokered the deal?
He has agreed to let an alien armed force, possibly up to25,000 strong, relocate to his territory. That looks risky. What is in it forhim?
Perhaps, seeing Putin fading, he is turning to Prigozhin as backupin case of popular revolt. Best to have foreign troops: they are less inhibitedabout shooting local civilians.
He does risk Prigozhin seizing power in Belarus. No doubt heis counting on the Russian’s focus remaining on Moscow, the bigger prize.
But even if so, Prigozhin might do better at taking Moscow ifhe combined his own force with the army of Belarus.
Perhaps then, rather than risk this, Lukashenko has actually agreed to join forces voluntarily with Prigozhin at some point in thisventure. A promise to do so may have been what clinched the deal: Prigozhin couldhave gone in immediately with the force he had at hand, or waited to go in laterwith the Belarussian army at his side.
From Prigozhin’s point of view, Belarus is conveniently closeto Moscow. He can martial here and wait his moment.
For Putin, the deal might have been worth making, even knowing this aspect of it, to allow himto organize his exit, with guarantees from Lukashenko and Prigozhin for hispersonal safety and security and a comfortable retirement. And who knows? Given a little more time,circumstances might also turn in his favour.
We shall see.
'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.
June 27, 2023
Toronto's New Mayor
Toronto has just elected a left-wing mayor, Olivia Chow. This confirms the wisdom of my plan to leave for New Brunswick. Cities tend to the left generally. And are generally falling into decay.
Not all Toronto mayors, however, have been left-wing. This is the home of Rob Ford and Mel Lastman. John Tory was a former leader of the Progressive Conservatives.
So does Chow’s election suggest a swing to the left?
I don’t think so. The field was fractured—over a hundred candidates. Chow stood out on the left, with big name recognition, and therefore was able to coalesce the left-wing vote behind her. The right was splintered among several candidates of relatively equal prominence: Mark Saunders, the former police chief, endorsed by Premier Ford; Anthony Furey, endorsed by Jordan Peterson; Ana Bailao, endorsed by ex-mayor Tory; Brad Bradford, a longtime city councillor; Chris Sky, whom Las Vegas was giving good odds. Vote was split; first-past-the-post system. Common story. The same reason Trudeau stays in power in Ottawa, despite being reviled by most Canadians.
As it was, Chow’s win was unexpectedly tight. Chow won by about 34,000 votes. If second-place Bailao had combined her right-wing vote with that of third-place right-wing Saunders, she would have beaten Chow by about the same margin. Add in fourth-place Anthony Furey, also on the right, and Bailao would have doubled Chow’s margin of victory.
If anything, this election showed the Toronto right wing vote to be stronger than the left-wing vote.
This being so, I am hopeful Chow’s agenda will be hog-tied in City Council.
And I begin to favour ending the first-past-the-post system. I’d like an Irish or Australian ballot, where you rank choices in order. Bottom candidate drops off and his vote is redistributed until one candidate or another reaches 50%.
'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.
June 26, 2023
For what It's Worth
As Prigozhin drove out of Rostov after the deal with Putin and the call-down, he was smiling. He did not look like a man who had just lost a big gamble. He did not look afraid.
Another Thought on Helping the Poor
Belatedly, I have another idea on how to achieve a preferential option for the poor. One major factor keeping the poor poor is frivolous overregulation restricting people from operating in given fields without a major investment of time and money. A government who really wanted to help the poor would cut these away.
June 25, 2023
Coming for Your Children
An actual crowd cant during the recent NYC Pride Parade.
"We're here. We're queer. We're coming for your children."
The Preferential Option for the Poor
Catholic social doctrine is, to my mind, close to being self-evidently true: solidarity, subsidiarity, human dignity, the dignity of labour. If only we could all agree on getting it done.
Except for one issue: the preferential option for the poor. Of course this is right; but how to go about it as a practical matter? How reduce inequalities of wealth in society?
We cannot simply take from the rich and give to the poor. This, as Catholic social doctrine makes clear, is unjust. Each man has a right to the products of his labour. This is what social justice actually means: to each according to his merits. That means he has a right to his property.
On the other hand, the dignity of man, and human solidarity, means we must together ensure that no one is left without means sufficient for life. We are each our brother’s keeper. In the classic case, if a man is starving, he has a right to take a loaf of bread. It is not theft, in a moral sense. We must organize society so that no one is sleeping in a tent in a Canadian winter.
But how?
Unions? Collective bargaining? Does not work. If one shop is organized to achieve higher wages, this means they must price their products higher. Customers go elsewhere, the firm goes out of business, and everyone starves.
Organize across an entire industry, and the work simply moves abroad.
The union movement has therefore collapsed in any industry which cannot establish a monopoly. It is limited to the building trades and government workers.
People in the building trades and the civil service make more than the average income.
So unions make the rich richer, by forcing the poor to pay more for certain goods and services.
A minimum wage? This has all the same problems. Jobs are eliminated in favour of self-serve and automation. As has been said, the real minimum wage is zero.
Welfare? A Universal Basic Income? Daniel Patrick Moynihan demonstrated its effects. By replacing the father in the family, it encourages family breakdown. Children do not well in a single-parent family, and the next generation is doomed to poverty and helplessness. It violates the dignity of work.
The first thing that might be done is to discourage single-parent families. End no-fault divorce.
The one thing that seems most obvious is that education should be free at all levels; as it is in some European countries. The only criterion for advancement should be merit. This is social justice; it gives everyone an equal shake. This is the same principle on which we have public libraries. It benefits not only the poor, but society as a whole: it means we get the best at each position, improving overall efficiency. If anything done by government ever were an investment, this is one.
The next thing would be monasteries—or some equivalent. A place where the poor and oppressed and those abandoned or abused by their families could be taken in, but with dignity and purpose. A place abused children could safely run away to. Sadly, the monasteries were broken up all over Europe in about the Enlightenment, not because the system did not work, but because it worked too well: the monasteries grew rich, and the civil power wanted the assets.
For some generations, the alternative for poor kids who were abused was to run off with the circus, or to become gas jockeys somewhere. That escape was killed by child labour laws and minimum wage. Leaving what? Only drug dealing or prostitution.
There was an attempt in the Seventies and Eighties to revive something like the monastery system: the “cults.” The Hare Krishnas, the Moonies, Scientology, the Falun Gong in China. And the authorities went after them hammer and tongs wherever they appeared. Remember Waco.
Even the Indian residential schools were too well calculated to help the Indian poor, and so have been declared anathema. Residential schools should probably instead be expanded: any child born into a single-parent family should attend a residential school. Ideally not run by government, but by some religious organization.
The reality is that much of society is constructed to keep the poor down.
'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.
June 24, 2023
Muslim Protest in Front of the PMO
https://twitter.com/truckdriverpleb/status/1672683426535682056?s=20
https://twitter.com/truckdriverpleb/status/1667193315576487936?s=20
So much for Trudeau's claim that Muslims support secularism and Christianity is anti-Muslim.
As a believing Christian, I actually felt more comfortable in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States than I do in secular Canada.
Divide and Rule
At this writing, it is not clear what is happening in Russia. This morning, Prigozhin’s Wagner group was marching for Moscow, Prigozhin saying Russia needed a new president. As of a couple of hours ago, Prigozhin has ordered them back to barracks. Has he lost, was it all some sort of play-acting, or is it a pause to allow for negotiation?
However it turns out, it seems strange in the first place that Putin would have let this situation develop. It seems an obviously bad idea to allow private armies within a state. This is why the government, proverbially, has a monopoly on the use of force. It is an invitation to eventual civil war. In the conduct of a war against external enemies, it leaves command disjointed and coordination difficult. And, as happened here, one faction can pull out of the line at the worst possible moment.
Yet this divide and rule pattern seems to be Putin’s preference. I understand he likes to encourage competing centres of power. He positively builds up warlords like Prigozhin or Kadyrov.
This is a trait Putin shares with Hitler. The Fuehrer too had his various private armies: the Waffen SS under Himmler; the SA under Roehm; the Luftwaffe and Gestapo under Goering. He would also regularly charge two officials with the same responsibilities. According to William L. Shirer, he even once had two officials, unknown to each other, bid competitively for something at auction on his behalf—forcing himself to pay a higher price.
It seems mad; it is mad; but it is typical of a narcissist. A narcissist delights in seeing conflict among others. They will stir it up. They will do what they can to convince party A that party B has it in or them; then party B that party A is out to get them. Perhaps this is to distract from their own scheming and self-serving; perhaps it salves their conscience to see others act maliciously. But it also means that, if anyone underneath them gets too big, they can call on the other factions to pull them down.
It means that a narcissist in power is profoundly damaging to any state, community, or family. There will be ill-feelings and grudges everywhere.
And it explains the beatitude “Blessed are the peace-makers.” This refers not to those who negotiate formal peace treaties, not the Kissingers and the Arafats or even the Pearsons. It refers to those who, when in power over others, try to maintain peace among those subject to them, rather than fomenting trouble.
Justin Trudeau is a striking example of a leader who foments conflict instead of peace. Biden is his like. The entire doctrine of intersectionality is about setting us all at one another’s throats. And is liable to lead us, too, to civil war.
'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.
