You do not have to do a thing to embarrass the federal Liberal government. They have silenced you because you are constrained by solicitor-client privilege. You cannot disclose the degree to which you were pressured not to go after SNC-Lavalin by way of criminal prosecution. You have been prevented from testifying before a parliamentary committee by the votes of its Liberal majority. So there you are: silenced.
Your power position will never be better. As soon as you break your silence, you will subject to questions about your judgment in the actual issue: ought SNC-Lavalin be prosecuted criminally? So do not be in any rush to speak to that issue. Be the woman righteously indignant. Be the woman offended by louts.
Let Trudeau and his evil advisor Gerald Butts stew in their own juices. It is comical to watch Justin Trudeau be unable to put a foot right in this affair. He or his minions slag you, then relents. He says you are happy in the cabinet, then you resign from it. And he fears letting you speak, so he maintains solicitor-client privilege. When this grenade finally goes off at your first press conference, it will wreck Trudeau’s posturing as a feminist. It may be the ruin of his government. It certainly puts the lie to his claims to sunny ways and to a special understanding of natives and native issues.
Think about the delicious irony. The opportunity to shuffle you out of the cabinet came as a result of Scott Brison’s resignation. You were moved to Veteran’s Affairs because Scott Brison, the minister who got the government involved in the disgraceful prosecution of Vice Admiral Norman for leaking cabinet secrets, left politics for business. Thus one scandal begot another.
As to the Prime Minister’s evil advisor Gerald Butts, it is time for Trudeau to turn on his closest political friend and can him. Trudeau will not get around this scandal without human sacrifice, and while I would gladly see an Aztec heart sacrifice for the wrecker of Alberta’s economy, I will have to be satisfied with Butts seeking “to spend more time with his family.” If that is a relevant term for one whose species is uncertain to replicate by sexual reproduction.
The longer you stay silent, Jody, the more the pressure builds. The longer you look like the offended party, the more Trudeau must suffer. Lord, he richly deserves this come-uppance. Pride goeth before a fall.
The Ancient Greeks had it all figured out when they said… “Whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.” Nothing has changed since then.
In the US, the rising stars of Bananarama Party include the always-entertaining woman, Ms Alesandrio Occasional-Cortex. The Democrats have been blessed, or rather the Republicans have been, with the most colossally stupid woman ever to attempt to simulate a coherent human, male, female, or other.
The Green New Deal [here] released recently, is the brain-child of every fantasizing leftist who has had one too many hits of the bong pipe in the college dorm. Upon examination, the GND looks like the workings of a Deep-Republican mole planting a limpet mine loaded with absurdity and ridicule under the rotting hull of the Democrat Party. S-h-u-r-r-e-l-y, you say, they can’t be serious?
The preamble contains all the usual blather and outright lies of the left:
Whereas….(1) human activity is the dominant cause of observed climate change over the past century; (2) a changing climate is causing sea levels to rise and an increase in wildfires, severe storms, droughts, and other extreme weather events that threaten human life, healthy communities, and critical infrastructure;
…blah, blah, and,
global warming at or above 2 degrees Celsius beyond preindustrialized levels will cause— (A) mass migration from the regions most affected by climate change; (B) more than $500,000,000,000 in lost annual economic output in the United States by the year 2100; (C) wildfires that, by 2050, will annually burn at least twice as much forest area in the western United States than was typically burned by wildfires in the years preceding 2019; (D) a loss of more than 99 percent of all coral reefs on Earth; (E) more than 350,000,000 more people to be exposed globally to deadly heat stress by 2050; and…
…lest you think I am kidding you, read the whole thing.
Be it resolved:
…(1) it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal— (A) to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers; (B) to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States; (C) to invest in the infrastructure and industry of the United States to sustainably meet the challenges of the 21st century; (D) to secure for all people of the United States for generations to come— (i) clean air and water; (ii) climate and community resiliency; (iii) healthy food; (iv) access to nature; and (v) a sustainable environment; and (E) to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous communities, communities of color, migrant communities,…
Oh, that’s enough of this drivel. They forgot free unicorns for the kids and pixie dust for energy production.
Apparently, Democrat legislation can consist solely of fatuous, handwaving wishful thinking with no basis in fact and absolutely no credibility in science or engineering. This is La-La land, pure and simple. This is what happens when a 29-year old woman with the intelligence of a three-year old is in control of the Democrats and is worshipped by the media journalists, who, to give credit where credit is due, are at least as ignorant as Ms Occasional-Cortex.
To understand why this Green New Fraud is bunkum from top to bottom, and why the politicians supporting it are frauds, just read “Sustainable Energy—-Without the Hot Air” [Hot Air]by Cambridge physicist David MacKay. Here, he translates into easily understandable terms (kilowatt-hours of energy—what you see on your electricity bill) how much “sustainable” energy would be required—even if it could be produced—to power industry, homes, and the transportation system. It’s a book that every greenie and eco-babbler should read—if they can.
The Green Fraud will not happen. It cannot happen. But what can happen is that our countries and industries and standards of living can be destroyed by idiotic politicians stealing our money through taxes and wasting it on absurd schemes based on their fantastical delusions.
We need to build more nuclear power, upgrade the electricity grid in a major way, invest in natural gas, and vote out these morons before they destroy modern society.
“The real universal basic income is cannabis and video games” – Naval Ravikant
Both are convinced we live in a simulation. Both are convinced that religion and mathematics are predicated on belief – that God and mathematical laws rest on axioms. God is the biggest axiom. You choose, that’s all. And by definition, both of them believe what they do without being able to prove it.
The modern world has a strange way of acting out in reality what our forebears took for absurdity and satire.
Take 1984 for instance. No doubt Orwell thought his dark foreboding vision of a communist future was just that—a vision. However, as time marches on, or slouches on, we approach ever more closely the totalitarian nightmare of IngSoc. Our rights and liberties are daily eroded and outright stolen by unscrupulous politicians, bureaucrats, and the endless special interest groups that crawl all over them like lice.
Another example is the fascinating novel “Erewhon” written in 1871 by Samuel Butler. Over seventy years before Orwell, Butler produced his story of a trip to an imaginary land which, he thought, would show through satire some of the most absurd behaviors and frivolities of society. In one part of the travels of our hero through Erewhon, he is at a supper party given by a Mr Thims, where he met some professors from the Erewhonian “universities”—the Colleges of Unreason.
One, a Professor of Worldly Wisdom, expanded on the malicious nature of genius, which, he held, was a great offense against Nature. His fame lay in his extensive work in suppressing any form of originality in students.
…“It is not our business,” he said, “to help students to think for themselves. Surely this is the very last thing which one who wishes them well should encourage them to do. Our duty is to ensure that they shall think as we do, or at any rate, as we hold it expedient to say we do.” In some respects, however, he was thought to hold somewhat radical opinions, for he was President of the Society for the Suppression of Useless Knowledge, and for the Completer Obliteration of the Past.
And as our hero remarks in the story,
…And really it is hard to see how the Erewhonian theory differs from our own, for the word “idiot” only means a person who forms his opinions for himself.
What a perfect description of the real-world “universities” of today! Not a word need be changed. Every student of quack sociology, gender-bender studies, or trans-lesbian armpit hair studies would subscribe to that, albeit expressed in the more turgid meanderings of post-modernist mumbo-jumbo.
Butler’s fantasies of the Colleges of Unreason have come to pass in actuality, now. It is possible, in some of our institutions of Higher Ignorance, to be disciplined by not subscribing to dogmas such as men can become women, which is biologically impossible.
Up next, Newton’s Laws of Motion will be classed as “hate” as they were formulated by a white man (as was almost all modern, and ancient, science).
Little did Samuel Butler know, that his biting satire would be turned into a demented reality by the progressives of today.
First I observe the death of two of my heroes: former Minister of Finance, Michael Wilson, and of foreign correspondent Joe Schlesinger, the last CBC reporter actually to have experienced the deadly effects of both Communism and National-Socialism. Michael, I am still sorry for accidentally clobbering you with my racquet in a squash game. You were a good sport and a fair player. And Joe, I am happy to have had the chance to congratulate you for your good work in a chance encounter at the grocery store.
To quote Rex Murphy on the subject of the O-C Green plan: “The enormousness of its prescriptions is overshadowed only by the might of ignorance that powered their composition. The Green New Deal is volcanic eruption of progressive stupidity. You’ve heard of Fake News. This is Fake Thought with bullet points.”
Dr Janet Albrechtsen gives a lucid analysis of the corrupting effects of grievance feminism on human freedoms that are so fundamental to Western values. The modern feminists’ whining about micro-aggressions and other poisonous fictions are the focus of their attention, and not the very real persecution and oppression of women in primitive societies like Islam practicing “honor” killing, slavery and female genital mutilation.
So strange that in a modern Western “university” it is free speech that is under threat by feminists and their soy-boy acolytes, while the very real suppression of women’s rights in Islamic societies goes unmentioned.
She gets another massive vote from…
The gays are waking up to the biological nature of sex. Andrew Sullivan writes in New York magazine this week about how some lesbians have started to object to the invasion of their spaces by penis-less males, such as Caitlyn Jenner and other males similarly transformed by surgery.
“It might be a sign of the end-times, or simply a function of our currently scrambled politics, but earlier this week, four feminist activists — three from a self-described radical feminist organization Women’s Liberation Front — appeared on a panel at the Heritage Foundation. Together they argued that sex was fundamentally biological, and not socially constructed, and that there is a difference between women and trans women that needs to be respected. For this, they were given a rousing round of applause by the Trump supporters, religious-right members, natural law theorists, and conservative intellectuals who comprised much of the crowd. If you think I’ve just discovered an extremely potent strain of weed and am hallucinating, check out the video of the event. “
The panel discussions involving the aforesaid radical lesbians concerned a federal non-discrimination bill, called the Equality Act. The bill
” would add “gender identity” to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, rendering that class protected by anti-discrimination laws, just as sex is. The [lesbian exclusivist] argument is that viewing “gender identity” as interchangeable with sex, and abolishing clear biological distinctions between men and women, is actually a threat to lesbian identity and even existence — because it calls into question who is actually a woman, and includes in that category human beings who have been or are biologically male, and remain attracted to women.
I find this kind of discussion to be healthy. When radical lesbians and Jordan Peterson are on the same page it is a good sign, I reckon. Sex is biological. Everyone knows this except the fanatics.
Sullivan’s article illustrates a much more important point than the argument he presents. If it takes lesbian separatists to argue that sex is primarily and preponderantly biological, then we have reached a dire situation. It shows the relative powerlessness of the 99.999% of normally constituted people in this discussion, gay or straight. I include all those as normal who do not wish to alter their sex by surgery. If Sullivan had covered the discussions at the Heritage Foundation without the lesbians, it would have been a miracle. It took a sexual minority – a minority within a minority – to authorize Sullivan to cover the debate.
“If this [argument of the lesbians] sounds like a massive overreach, consider the fact that the proposed Equality Act — with 201 co-sponsors in the last Congress — isn’t simply a ban on discriminating against trans people in employment, housing, and public accommodations (an idea with a lot of support in the American public). It includes and rests upon a critical redefinition of what is known as “sex.” We usually think of this as simply male or female, on biological grounds (as opposed to a more cultural notion of gender). But the Equality Act would define “sex” as including “gender identity,” and defines “gender identity” thus: “gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or characteristics, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth.”
“What the radical feminists are arguing is that the act doesn’t only blur the distinction between men and women (thereby minimizing what they see as the oppression of patriarchy and misogyny), but that its definition of gender identity must rely on stereotypical ideas of what gender expression means. What, after all, is a “gender-related characteristic”? It implies that a tomboy who loves sports is not a girl interested in stereotypically boyish things, but possibly a boy trapped in a female body. And a boy with a penchant for Barbies and Kens is possibly a trans girl — because, according to stereotypes, he’s behaving as a girl would. So instead of enlarging our understanding of gender expression — and allowing maximal freedom and variety within both sexes — the concept of “gender identity” actually narrows it, in more traditional and even regressive ways. What does “gender-related mannerisms” mean, if not stereotypes?”
Indeed, and well argued. Passing into law what amounts to ideological claptrap is common enough in these insane times. The reason that the forces of madness can get away with this dangerous nonsense is that opposition has been crushed in advance, silenced, made impossible, by political pressures on free speech.
Why does it take – why must it take – a bunch of lesbian separatists to be the only people authorized to object to this madness? Said one of them: “We may be lesbians but we are not confused about biology”.
A social contagion is at work. It is the akin to the witchcraft craze of the 16th century. It is assumed that transgender people exist, just as we once thought there were witches. One era penalized them, another lauds them. But the delusion is that there are such people, children even, who must be accommodated on pain of legal penalty.
An interesting article in Manhattan Contrarian today reminds me of the importance of envy as a way to understand the root of leftist politics. Envy is one of the seven deadly sins. Unlike the other six (wrath, sloth, gluttony, pride, lust and greed), envy cannot exist without comparison to others. Envy is always about how one feels about another, be it a person or some abstraction, like a nation or a political system. We shall return to envy shortly. In the meantime, contemplate these facts.
The author of Manhattan Contrarian, Francis Menton, was touring Cambodia and describes the Cambodian genocide.
“When the killings started in 1975, there were fewer than 8 million Khmer in Cambodia (and not too many more outside). Four years later, the population of the country was well under 5 million. Historian Ben Kiernan has estimated the number murdered at 1.7 million. Others place the number at between 2 and 2.5 million. Most died in actual one-on-one executions, although there was also plenty of mass starvation. Literally everyone lost multiple friends and/or family members.
“Recognizing that causation is a very complex subject and that a series of events can have many causes, it is still true that in every version of the Cambodian genocide that I have found the causation story comes back to the same thing: ideology. In this case the ideology was communism, that pernicious European quasi-religious idea that somehow got taken up in the twentieth century by various Asians as the preferred route to utopia. New dictator Pol Pot got it into his head to impose a “pure” form of Maoist communism, which involved getting rid of all vestiges of capitalism and forcing everybody into a collectivized agrarian economy. Before the killings even got going, the entire populations of the cities and most villages were marched out forcibly into the countryside and resettled. From The Culture Trip:
[After Pol Pot assumed power in April 1975] residents were immediately rounded up and sent to the countryside as part of the communist regime’s plans to create an agrarian society. Personal possessions were confiscated, money abolished, family ties severed and the almighty Angkar [political police] set the brutal laws, which saw the population sent to work the land under appalling conditions.
“How did they decide whom to kill? The basic concept was, anybody who did not subscribe perfectly and in every respect to the ideological script, or who was suspected even a little of less than perfect loyalty to the regime. As the genocide got going, the criteria came to include anyone who had achieved any success in life, however minimal: every owner of significant property, every professional, every entrepreneur, every academic, every teacher. From Wikipedia:
The Khmer Rouge regime arrested and eventually executed almost everyone suspected of connections with the former government or with foreign governments, as well as professionals and intellectuals.
“According to information I got from one of our local guides, at the end of the “killing fields” period, there remained in Cambodia only about 40 medical doctors, 52 university-level teachers, 200 high school-level teachers, and 2000 elementary school-level teachers. These people had survived by lying low and not admitting who they were. The country had been substantially set back to the stone age.”
There is a theory that explains this behaviour, and another that justifies it. The justification for class extermination comes from Karl Marx. The explanation for the motives that drive the extermination of the intelligent and the accomplished comes from a man called Helmut Schoeck.
The power of envy is not sufficiently appreciated, either for its pervasive negative effects, or that it takes political forms. The great book on the subject was written by a Austrian-German professor who taught in the United States, Helmut Shoeck, (3 July 1922 – 2 February 1993) and it is called simply, Envy.
Schoeck sees envy as a pervasive force throughout human affairs, stifling and even deadly in its effects if unconstrained, and in constant need of containment. He argues that envy is one of the chief forces causing underdevelopment in many parts of the world. Further, that until the social power of envy was abated, economic development as we have come to experience was blocked at every turn. Avoiding the “evil eye”, he says, is one of the expressions that the power of envy takes in many parts of the world. Entire societies, from Andean peasants to Arabs, are held back by the need to avoid the envy of one’s neighbours by visibly succeeding, which means, in essence, by accumulating, more property than one’s neighbours.
His interpretation of Protestantism connects to the struggle against envy and the takeoff of modern economic development in some parts of the world since the Reformation. Schoeck writes that the idea of God in Calvinism was crucial to the liberation of those personal and social forces and self-authorizations that underlie capitalist development. This idea was of a God who envies us nothing. If God does not envy, why should we?
Marxism, in this view, is but the resurrection of the power of envy into a supposedly scientific theory. “It is only in Marxism, the abstract and glorified concept of the proletariat, the disinherited and exploited, that a position of implacable envy is fully legitimized.”
Schoeck was the first man, to my knowledge, to understand explicitly the force of envy as a destructive and pervasive social pressure, which needs all the power of religion to repress and to contain. I have managed to describe Shoeck’s thinking in bare outline here; I recommend the book. It is one of the most important I have ever read.
I end with a quote from Schoeck on the real nature of envy:
“But Chaucer also sees envy as the worst of sins because nearly all the rest oppose only one virtue, whereas envy turns against all the virtues and against everything that is good. It denies, as we would now say, every value in the scale or table of values. Because the envious man takes exception to his neighbour’s every virtue and advantage, the sin of envy is distinct from all others. Every other kind of sin is in itself pleasurable, to some degree productive of satisfaction, but envy only produces envy and sorrow. Chaucer holds envy to be a sin against nature because it consists in the first place of distress over other people’s goodness and prosperity, and prosperity is naturally a matter of joy. In the second place envy consists of joy in the ills and suffering that befall others. This envy is like the devil, who always rejoices in human suffering.”
Doctrines that unleash the power of envy end in massacre, as Cambodia’s attempted social purification attests, along with the massacre of Ukrainian farmers and Europe’s Jews under the Nazis, to name only the modern examples. I wonder how much of the abhorrence on the Covington kids by the outraged political left is essentially envy of their bright normalness, their happiness, their whiteness, which they disguise from themselves by calling it white privilege.