Pen as Sword - Social Commentary

Why Do Canadians Hate …

“Into The Shadow Realm”, Howard Shore, from “Lord Of The Rings”

Watching American news on the satellite, trying to get a sense of how things are unfolding to the south of us. Certain concentrations of left wing extremists are trying to whip the universe into a frothing frenzy of “Trunp” hate. The observable fact that the nation is not following is inciting them to ever higher levels of shrill rhetoric.

Mark Steyn writes,

*****

000-hate-crime“The object of Parliament,” observed Winston Churchill at election time in 1951, “is to substitute argument for fisticuffs.”

How’s that holding up after November 8th? The object of at least a proportion of those on the streets is to substitute fisticuffs for argument, and indeed for Parliament:  The less self-aware even chant “This is what democracy looks like!” – by which they mean not the election but the post-election riots and looting and assaults.

Some among these self-proclaimed champions of women and immigrants wish to substitute rape for argument, a cause of such broad appeal that the ideological enforcers at the monopoly social-media cartels breezily permitted the hashtag “Rape Melania” to “trend” on Twitter.

*****

philadelphia_furious_protesters_in_the_city_of_brotherly_loveFrom the website “Before Its News”…

…if you keep insisting that half your fellow citizens are haters, maybe you’re the hater.

…one third of the Democrats’ representation in the House now comes from just three states – New York, Massachusetts and California. That’s one reason why they’re calling for the abolition of the Electoral College.

But, absent the upending of the constitution, they have a problem.

ap-election-protests-georgia…John Oliver and Stephen Colbert and Trevor Noah have sportingly decided, to judge from their ratings, to prioritize their politics over their comedy. But, whether or not “Love Trumps Hate”, condescension doesn’t trump anything.

For a year-and-a-half they shoveled industrial-strength coastal sneering into the path of the Trump train on a scale that would have derailed any other candidate before he got to Iowa. Instead, Trump just bulldozed through it – and so easily that he won the White House for a fifth of what Hillary spent.

If elite condescension failed to deny him the presidency, is it likely to be any more effective now that he is the president?

Twilight And Shadow”, Howard Shore, from “Lord Of The Rings“.

a-liberal-loveinWhat “message of unity” could be simpler than that one in every two Americans is a violent hater-racist-misogynist-homophobe-Islamophobe-transphobe Satan fridge-magnet?  On Friday, in a veritable frenzy of virtue signalling, the hashtag #safetypin trended on Twitter, as dozens of people shared selfies with safety pins attached to their clothing.

“Standing together we will be safe,” one user tweeted.

The-Return-of-the-King-Smeagols-Birthday“My #SafetyPin shows I will protect those who feel in danger bc of gender, sexuality, race, disability, religion, etc.,” another said. “You are safe with me.”

That’s true in the sense that, if Matt Harrington is around and they’ve confiscated his sniper rifle, he’ll be able to borrow your safety pin and stab Trump with it.

Can you really substitute virtue-signaling for argument? Especially when it’s this lame? And, indeed, are there enough safety-pins in America for all those who feel unsafe? Or will Trump’s trade war be dealt a massive crushing defeat as cheap knock-offs from Chinese safety-pin factories flood the US market?

*****

Bulverism is a logical fallacy that combines a genetic fallacy with circular reasoning. (ed. One of the best current examples of Bulverism can be found at “Salon” with their articles about Trump)

The method of Bulverism is to “assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error”. The Bulverist assumes a speaker’s argument is invalid or false and then explains why the speaker came to make that mistake, attacking the speaker or the speaker’s motive. The term “Bulverism” was coined by C. S. Lewis[1] to poke fun at a very serious error in thinking that, he alleges, recurs often in a variety of religious, political, and philosophical debates.

Similar to Antony Flew‘s “Subject/Motive Shift”, Bulverism is a fallacy of irrelevance. One accuses an argument of being wrong on the basis of the arguer’s identity or motive, but these are strictly speaking irrelevant to the argument’s validity or truth. But it is also a fallacy of circular reasoning, since it assumes, rather than argues, that one’s opponent is wrong.

(C.S.) Lewis wrote about this in a 1941 essay[2][3] which was later expanded and published in The Socratic Digest under the title “Bulverism”.[4][3] This was reprinted both in Undeceptions and the more recent anthology God in the Dock. He explains the origin of this term:[5]

You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it “Bulverism”.

Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third — “Oh you say that because you are a man.” “At that moment”, E. Bulver assures us, “there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument.

Assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall.” That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.

CUT TO CANADIAN NEWS ON GLOBAL NATIONAL:

100-canadian-landscape

Canadian Landscape with the Trump Hate contaminating everything

The mood change almost gave me whiplash … The big news item appears to be that “Canadians” are fearful that “Trump Hate” is leaking over the border and contaminating Canadian Water and maybe Canadian politics as well!

As the writer above said: … what “message of unity” could be simpler than that one in every two Americans is a violent hater-racist-misogynist-homophobe-Islamophobe-transphobe Satan fridge-magnet?  One thing is undeniably true “Canadians” are ALWAYS fearful of SOMETHING … it just changes from day to day and even hour to hour. Why can’t they stay focused on our media message?

It seems that the dominant meme of the American extreme left progressives is finding fertile soil in the Great White North, eh?  And the scary part is that this is normal, especially amongst the Canadian chattering classes and the inhabitants of the media swamp.

And why not?  After all, Canada is a nation of facile, self-righteous, hypocritical, haters from sea to shining sea.  And nowhere are they more frantic in their hating than when it comes to hating Americans (a severely overdeveloped case of “Short-Man Syndrome”).

03-pool-of-worship

OMG I’m just SO beautiful and I’m such a nice person too …

violent hater-racist-misogynist-homophobe-Islamophobe-transphobe Satan fridge-magnet” is just about THE perfect encapsulation of how Canadian Liberals of all stripes view ANYONE who has the misfortune to disagree with them or to prefer to deal in facts rather than social media “virtue signalling“.

This sad fact is especially true when talking about Americans or “American” culture. Funny thing though, the roots of American culture are British, and the roots of Canadian culture are British, except for a few privileged minorities who owe their continued existence to the generous way that the British have always treated their enemies.

So where do we get off sneering about American culture? Those holding these violent hate filled views would do well to read Russel Kirk’s “The Roots of American Order“, of course there are a lot of facts in this great book and they don’t adapt well to social media or virtue signalling.

“Yup, huh, huh, huh, ya sure gotta admit it … Trump Hate is showing up on the Canadian scene, contaminating the worship pool. Hey, anyone wanna head over to Timmy’s, I am feeling kinda nibbly. I heard they have a new caramel covered doughnut these days.”

I watch all the usual suspects in their self-congratulatory holier than thou pontification and find I am deeply ashamed of Canadians … deeply ashamed …

Cheers

Joe

Dan Jurac Fine Art Photo of Hoar Frost_DSC2972_Of course always remember to be charitable, even though that is distinctly un-Canadian, eh?.

And of course “anyone who disagrees with ME is a “violent hater-racist-misogynist-homophobe-Islamophobe-transphobe Satan fridge-magnet”. There, I said it first, nya, nya, na nya na …  who the heck cares about facts and truth anyway, that is all just so yesterday.

Disclaimer for nitpickers: We take pride in being incomplete, incorrect, inconsistent, and unfair. We do all of them deliberately.

 

Standard
Pen as Sword - Social Commentary, Politics and Economics

Oil and Extractive Economies …

Now how about that post about extractive economies?  hmmm. Book to read:  “Why Nations Fail” Really interesting read. I observe that the common notion of “extractive economy” equates to the extraction of natural resources, mining, forestry, fishery, and so on, from the bank of resources serendipitously found in the particular piece of real-estate any nation has the good fortune to find themselves sitting upon when that resource is in demand.

And there is much to be said about that view as the “real” view, without ever touching upon the “other resource” which government and industry tend to leave out of their equations, namely the folks who work in the departments and divisions of government and corporation. Without these people nothing would get done, nothing would be manipulated or processed or assembled, or serviced or communicated, etc. etc. I believe that in fact the conditions under which the ordinary people live, labour,  and function in the society, the social framework in fact determines the success or failure of a society. I further believe that we here in North America are moving further and further towards the failure model.

Whether the output be minerals, or metals, or organic items, or services, or information manipulation, nothing is produced, no value is added, without the human input. And the ever increasing incentive is to continually make more output with less input, to become more “efficient”. In the human domain this translates into the dehumanization of the individual such that the value attached to any member of society is exactly measured by how valuable their output is to the elite. What are you good for? What kind of outputs can we “extract” from you.

In “Why Nations Fail” Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson conclusively show that it is man-made political and economic institutions that underlie economic success (or the lack of it). Korea, to take just one of their fascinating examples, is a remarkably homogeneous nation, yet the people of North Korea are among the poorest on earth while their brothers and sisters in South Korea are among the richest.

South Korea forged a society that created incentives, rewarded innovation, and allowed everyone to participate in economic opportunities. The economic success thus spurred was sustained because the government became accountable and responsive to citizens and the great mass of people. Sadly, the people of North Korea have endured decades of famine, political repression, and very different economic institutions—with no end in sight. The differences between the Koreas is due to the politics that created these completely different institutional trajectories.

The difference is not really one of Capitalism versus Communism but rather the working out of systems which value the unique talents and individual abilities of their people more or less. The more they are valued, and recognized and rewarded, the more successful the system. There is an inherent hypocrisy in our democratic system. Under the misperception that elections ensure liberty, each individual lets society put the collar on, for he sees that it is not a person, or a class of persons, but society itself which holds the end of the chain.

Our elections briefly place power in the populace, a painfully brief exercise in freedom. Inevitably this brief freedom is followed by the takeover by the politicians who alternate between ruling the majority, or pandering to them. As De Tocqueville says “The people are turned alternatively into the playthings of the sovereign and into his masters, being either greater than kings or less than men.” Democracy has not liberated the population, but enslaved them with a stealthy despotism. That stealthy despotism continues to steadily encroach on our freedoms and individual merit with every little advance of statism.

Witness the current stealth attack on the Alberta economy by the newly elected extreme left wing socialist government. We don’t even have a budget or an accounting of where we are or where we are going but the floodgates of profligacy have been opened wide to reward the voters and cronies who put them in place.  Not just in Alberta, but all over North America we are steadily creeping closer and closer to a Big Brother knows all, sees all, does all, decides all, with the concomitant reduction in the value, rights  and status of the individual. We are steadily developing a society where the individual is valued not at all. As we progress down this slippery slope we see a steady decline in productivity and 0 or negative growth regardless of what the talking heads and stooges for the central power steadily bleat.

In yet another example of how societies benefit or fail as they value their citizens is the current German experience after the fall of the wall. “Wessie” is an innocent enough name, but there is encapsulated a lot of passionate meaning  to the East German. They claim that these despicable Wessies refuse to accept reunification and lend the helping hand fellow countrymen ought to. The Wessies are ungrateful that the East Germans bought their goods and boosted their economy. Now they have become whiners, grumbling about the pathetic East Germans instead of accepting reunification and learning from their East German neighbors. So claim the East Germans.

The West German term of “Ossie” is just as stinging. The West Germans see the Ossies as afraid of accepting the freedom that they fought so hard to achieve. The Ossies cling to “ostalgie” (nostalgia) realizing suddenly that life behind the wall wasn’t so dreadful after all. The arrogant Ossies take no responsibility for the difficulties since reunification. The Ossies want a freedom that is free of accountability a “free ride” as it were. The West Germans just want them to know that freedom is something you have to continue fighting for each day. The day you stop fighting is the day you give up your freedom.

Again, I believe we are moving slowly but steadily towards the  “Ossie” model of statism and the voters are accepting it like frogs in a pot of water heating on a stove.

(continued) …

Cheers

Joe

CSR

Standard