Canada court declared war on Jordan Peterson's liberty

There's a lot to digest today.  The GOP debate, the president Trump interview with Tucker Carlson.  But let's start with Canada's encroaching censorship and the court decision on Jordan Peterson.

As a Canadian citizen with an American heart, this is scary.  Jordan Peterson responds in the interview, pointing out basically that every Canadian has now been told to shut the hell up. 

The cult of vaccination, and the death of the Republic

I've always thought anti-vaxxers were nuts.  Measles vaccinations work. Polio vaccines worked, smallpox vaccines worked.  And even thought it is impressive that they were able to come up with a vaccine so quickly (under president Trump's push to do so), the FDA usually takes years of testing before approving a drug.  They didn't do that this time in the rush to address the "COVID crisis". Insufficient testing and approval leads to problems. You want an example? I give you Thalidomide. So have I become an anti-vaxxer? No.  But I am highly suspicious of both the efficacy of the COVID vaccines and the potential side effects (both short term and especially long term).  I haven't had my shot yet.  I'm letting the woke crowd be the human lab rats.  Maybe I'll take it in a few years if nobody sprouts extra limbs.

I've also become an alarmist on the whole vaccine passport notion, and I think very justifiably so. The extended lockdowns were bad enough, damaging economies and lives, with little critical thinking into the the idea that the cure may be worse than the disease.  Faith in "The Science" has become it's own religion or rather a cult. Those who do not believe are ridiculed.  That's a cult. Those who disagree or ask questions are disparaged and punished.  That's a cult.  Those who follow blindly or are willingly brainwashed are praised and rewarded with being allowed to continue their jobs and not starve to death and/or become homeless. That's a cult.

This is what happens with cults:

COVID doomsayers who love "The Science" have become a cult.  And it's a foolish cult at that; science is not meant to become policy and beyond that, "The Science" is clearly not complete or settled when it comes to COVID. Jordan Peterson discusses just that with Steven Crowder.

Project Veritas has started a new undercover sting, this time on insiders on COVID.  This is my biggest concern, science happening (in this case human deaths or dangerous side effects) and reporting on that being stifled. It's like they want you take the vaccine and they don't care if they have to lie to you to do so.  How can you make an informed decision if you hide truthful information from you?

And if they can lie about this, if they can lie to our faces about the failures of the Afghanistan withdrawal they can lie to us about anything. They can lie to us about what happened on January 6th, 2020 at the Capitol.  They can lie about who won the 2020 election.  Anything. 

The American Republic, the one and only bastion of true individual liberty in the history of the world, is on the precipice of becoming just another authoritarian regime. As a non-American, I implore you - do not let this happen to your country. You are better than this.

China's Communist Party tightens it's grip

 In an effort to choke liberty into non-existence, the CCP continues to strangle freedom of the press, such as it is, in Hong Kong.

The perversion of exporting liberty

Yesterday I shared, without comment, a Bill Whittle video about the jobs boom going on in Dallas.  But it got me thinking.  If you go back to the Cold War, there was on both sides of the political aisle (for the most part) a fundamental belief that America's core values, America's system, and America's approach to things was the best approach ever conceived by man to providing liberty and prosperity for people.  And it was (and still is).  But accompanying that belief was also an approach to sharing that method with the rest of the world.  The idea was that others would see or be shown the American way and try to emulate it for themselves.  There was an idea that we did not need to force freedom on other countries just offer them a taste of it and they would want it because underlying human nature was the desire for independence, liberty and prosperity.

I recall as a youth people arguing that we The West should be flooding the Soviet Union with Pepsi, or Coca Cola and other products that they could not possibly produce within their communist system and they would yearn for it rather than lining up for hours to buy a pair of shoes that were not the right size because it was all they could get.

When the United States won the Cold War with the Soviet Union, it came about because of combination of factors.  Of course president Reagan's effort to spend them into submission militarily was the single biggest factor but it did not occur in isolation.  The U.S.S.R. in trying to match that spending was using so much of it's GDP on military spending that things only got worse for its citizens.  But the combination of Perestroika and Glasnost that allowed citizens to see a little more what was going on in the West, what was available, proved to the people that they were being oppressed.  They wanted the freedoms and abundances that capitalism and liberty offered.  

The exporting of ideals and liberty that Americans had, and truthfully could be had elsewhere if the people were willing, helped win the Cold War.

But somewhere along the way a perversion of that idea occurred, and it has been twisted into a horrible reality. Take a look at today's Left in America who argue that everyone wanting freedom should be granted unfettered access to America and granted all of her protections reserved for the weakest and most vulnerable among her citizens.  The notion that we should empower those from other countries to copy the American experiment for themselves into the notion that they can't do it and we should absorb them all into America.

How sinister.  Firstly it is a politi-centric or maybe ethnocentric notion that only Americans can do what Americans have done.  That is to suggest that no other nation has people who can be industrious, inventive, creative, productive or even open to freedom.  That is patently absurd.  Maybe not every nation can do it to the same extent as America because there are other factors like population, demographics and natural resources that have an impact.  But improvement is possible everywhere and using a proven method - the American experiment way - is the surest approach known to achieve that.

Secondly, the notion of exporting the American method of prosperity disappearing in favor of importing all of the downtrodden is a sure fire way to snuff out the flame that is the American way.  Insolvency is the opposite of prosperity and supporting unfettered immigration is a sure fire way to ensure insolvency.  So those behind that approach are either gullible, or socialists wanting to end the American experiment almost as if it were some sort of revenge last strike of the Soviet Union.

The contrast of the two approaches is stark.  While exporting liberty and capitalism has no guarantee of success, at least not quickly, the inverse, importing the impoverished does come with a guarantee - of complete and total failure for America, and therefore those it's proponents are claiming to want to help.

Why the perversion happened is no longer of consequence except in that it needs to be reversed and in order to reverse it completely, we need to understand why and how the perversion of the idea of exporting the American approach to liberty and prosperity occurred.  This coming weekend my Saturday Learning Series will feature some thoughts on the motivations of the socialist mindset by Ayn Rand with respect to the socialist thinkers (as opposed to those fooled by the socialist lies).  It's not the whole answer, but it is a truly good jumping off point to try to understand how to combat the lies that Americans have been taught about their system, and themselves.

CPAC 2019 - Faith Matters

Do your part, help build a red wall

Less than 2 weeks to the 2018 midterm elections.  After a relatively slow year of blogging through September,  I have been in high gear this month.  The reason for that is that I believe this is a crucial midterm, even more important than 2010, or 2014.  More important than 1994.  Each of those midterm elections were important, but they pale in comparison to what has been exposed now: America first works, globalism is a road to ruin.

I've already said this month that now is the time.  This is the opportunity for America to continue to step away from the brink of progressivism and socialism and to be frank, national failure.  I'm hoping that those who turned out to vote for president Trump feel as energized as those who oppose him and the successes he has achieved for the country since his election.

As an outsider (I'm Canadian, but was thinking of starting my own caravan to the greatest nation on earth), I feel like my only ability to make a difference in the cause of liberty, is to focus on the one country that really matters - America.  If I can help influence even one congressional or senatorial election by highlighting the differences in the Republican and Democratic candidates in individual races, then that's what I must do.  It's the least I can do, even as it is the most I can do.  I don't get to vote in American elections (since it seems non-citizens are only allowed to vote illegally if they vote for Democrats).  

But you DO.  

It is incumbent upon you, it is your duty as an American who enjoys liberty, safety, opportunity and wealth like no other national on earth to protect those things.  Liberty in particular is a flame that can easily be extinguished by as little as complacency.  One party stands for individualism.  Liberty means individualism.  The other party stands for collectivism.  That's a recipe for subordinating the individual to the identifiable groups with which they can be associated.  That is anathema to liberty.  If you can not be you, you are not truly free.

Unlike totalitarianism, which requires acquiescence, liberty requires effort.  America has made your effort as simple as standing in line to vote.  It does not require your blood, or your treasure.  The cost therefore is minimal. The risk that results from doing nothing is a turn back to malaise, weakness and misfortune that might be inescapable afterwards. The reward for making the effort is the chance for America to be truly great again.  Making America great (or keeping it great) is a work in progress - always.  Do your part. Vote. At a minimum.  If you are able to do more, do so - volunteer, donate, talk to others whom you might convince.

It's your duty as an American.  I'm not saying that to be trite. I'm saying it because there are millions of people around the world, myself included, who know what is at stake and would change places with an unconcerned American in a heartbeat. If we can see that, I assume you can too and are already ready to act on November 6th.  But if you are not there yet, please take my word for it; a Blue Wave is a wave of darkness. Do your part to make sure there is no blue wave, no blue trickle, no blue anything.

Why Poland matters

Poland for years has been carrying the banner of Western values of freedom of speech, individual liberty, Christian values, and national sovereignty .  Perhaps it's because Poland has not been truly free since World War II, having been subjugated and then by the communists of Soviet Russia.  Having tasted freedom for such a relatively short period of roughly three decades, they are not about to surrender their liberty to globalist and/or dictatorial leadership, or creeping Sharia Law.  The Polish people seem to get what the Germans (and many Americans) are unwilling to recognize.

These two videos illustrate a lot these points that you'll not see in the mainstream media in America or much of Western Europe.

Poland has managed to carry this through an Obama presidency which was antithetical to many of these values AND in the face of Russian aggression in the Ukraine, which truly says something for the backbone of the Polish people.

Guns, guns, guns.

So, I'm a Canadian. I don't have the Constitutional right to bear arms like you in America. It's never really bothered me, because I haven't felt the need to have one. But I do understand and appreciate the notion behind the second amendment, and apparently better than many liberals in the United States.  And regardless of whether or not I wanted to have one, I would be extremely dubious about people trying to roll back a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

The right to bear arms is meant in the context of the framers as yet another check on government power. Yes, in the 1700's they needed guns to hunt. They needed guns for a well-regulated militia. But the entire framework of the Constitution surrounds the notion of checks on government abuse of power. Government cannot be for the people if it comes before the people. I like that. I've never heard it before. I think I'll tweet it. Anyway, the entire document is designed to protect liberty. An oppressive government cannot be fought with wishes, but an armed population would certainly make a government think twice about repealing freedoms.

But liberals will argue that we now have the internet, people can think for themselves (unless they march lockstep with other liberals) and can tweet out the latest government abuse of power (like say in the Ferguson situation). Right. I'm going to allow my freedom to rest on the ironclad foundation of Facebook, Youtube, Instagram and Twitter. Maybe I'm wrong but I'd rather have something a little sturdier backing up my concern about the NSA.

Even if I grant that the liberals are right about social media being a powerful tool (and in many ways it is), I still have a problem with their logic. Riots like the one in Ferguson will not stop because the lack of availability of weapons. On a large scale or a personal scale, if someone wants to do harm or rob a grocery store, not having a gun isn't going to stop them. They can just google how to fashion a weapon out of chemicals.

If guns were to disappear from the face of the earth today, someone would still be murdered by some other means tomorrow. There's chemistry, there's knives, there's clubs, and rocks and bricks and poison and a million other ways for people to hurt and kill other people. You can't ban everything.

Lumberjacks are going to need those axes and chainsaws. Those things could be weapons.

It's not rocket science. If you can't stop every violent problem by restricting guns, then maybe guns are not the root of every problem. Maybe it's part of human nature. Maybe you need to start thinking about banning our DNA. Good luck with that.

Banning stuff

It's interesting that a lot of people think that the solution for some problem is to ban it.  If only it were that easy.  It's the equivalent of liberals deciding that mandating a higher minimum wage will solve the problem of poverty. No, it won't.  Banning something to take care of it would be a wonderful tool if it worked (and more importantly it weren't abused as a power.  then again you could just ban abusing the power to ban stuff).  In the poverty example, banning poverty won't eradicate it.  That's not to say that the rationale behind banning something isn't being driven by improper motives.

The Rationale for America is Quickly Disappearing

I recall telling a fellow Canadian something a couple of years ago when they had wondered aloud why Americans were so adamant about their guns and why they were so up in arms over government health care.  I explained to him that both issues stem from the same national sensibility and that America, as a nation was born of a distrust of government.  The English crown was the problem back then, but the DNA today remains the same - at least for many Americans - government cannot be trusted.

 

A light bulb went off for the Canadian in question.  It did not change his opinion on health care I am sure, but it did clarify his understanding of why people would have certain opinions on certain issues. In fact, he was the type whom I'm sure could and would apply that reasoning to views on other political topics.

Of course the explanation was a gross over-simplification of the conservative viewpoint on a number of issues.  But the simplification had its benefits in that it crystalized quite quickly an understanding that had not existed before. Also, I got lucky.  The conversation could have taken an entirely different, and more argumentative course if I had added one word to my explanation: healthy.  If I had said America was born of a healthy distrust of government, I'm sure I would have made no progress in that discussion.

The reason for the back story is that it relates to another issue. The original rationale for America is quickly disappearing.  The idea that the United States was the child of a core human wish for freedom (not democracy, but rather liberty) has been subverted in two fundamental ways. 

Privacy versus Security is the wrong debate

I'll make this relatively short.  President Obama said a while back that he welcomes the debate about how much investigative power and leeway the government has to combat terrorism.  On the face of it, that debate makes sense and in fact it is an important debate that goes all the way back to Ben Franklin's quote "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." That's a great quote but using it in this contexts overlooks one aspect of the situation that is a glaring problem.

Trading liberty for security

The debate that president Obama supposedly welcomes - how much security versus how much liberty - is one that is just now getting started. I plan on writing a lengthy position on it in the near future.  I need to analyze my own thinking on the subject first.  It's something I have recommended others to do as well.  Everyone should think about this - it is a very serious issue.  

The 'debate'  Obama wants is necessary. But I don't think it really should amount to a debate. A debate implies two resolute, absolute and mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive positions.  But I don't believe that is the case here.  The false choice president Obama has implied are on the one hand unfettered operational environment for terrorists but absolute personal privacy and Big Brother on the other hand.  There are clearly possibilities between those two extremes.

Boston Marathon Bombing: Some Thoughts

Photo:  News.com.au

Yesterday a couple of bombs (IEDs) went off at the Boston Marathon.  I had a cousin running in that race for the first time in her life, after years of training. She made it to about the 34 kilometer mark and was stopped and put into lockdown in a church with a bunch of other runners in her immediate area.  The response from local authorities was effective and well done from what I hear.  My cousin, after a lengthy lockdown opted to leave the church and continue running to the finish area where her family was near.  They were also safe and she knew they were.  But she wanted to run and she wanted to get back to her family.  Ultimately she was reunited with her husband and children and able to run a full marathon plus, somehow extra distance. I watched the unfolding events on CNN and Fox (as well as Twitter and Hot Air) and followed her husband's updates on Facebook.  As I watched it all, a number of thoughts occurred to me.

Gun violence solution cart before the discussion horse

On the left side of the page: totalitarian brotherhood.

The United States is unique in it's Constitutional protection of the right to bear arms. It is also the one country  in the world that, despite claims both the left and the right raise when the other side is in charge, is least likely to devolve into a dictatorship.  

The two points are highly correlated - a well-armed, and well-informed populace cannot be cajoled or bullied into submission to a dictatorial power.  While the left has seen to it for decades that the people of the United States have not been well-informed (or indeed, have been deliberately misinformed), the holy grail has remained a non-armed society.  An unarmed society is or can be made, a compliant society.  Take away people's information and take away their arms, and they are easy prey to a dictatorial regime.  If the left realizes this they are deliberately seeking to undermine the primary notion of the nation - liberty.  Just as bad, if they don't realize it, they are paving the path for a future dictator wherein it will be too late for them to realize the folly of their ways.

Bad Day for Liberty

Fear rules the day, not liberty.

Oh my God.

The Supreme Court today made a decision that will reverberate for a century. I'm not overstating it when I say that this was a fundamentally bad decision, a terrible precedent and a truly shameful day in American history. Before I delve into the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth, let me add a glimmer of good that may come out of this decision to uphold the constitutionality of Obamacare (PPACA). There are two ways to look at this; the glass is half empty and the glass is half full.

Glass half full: This should really motivate the conservative base. Get out and vote for Senators and Congressmen and even Romney. It may also help ensure that there are more conservative justices on the Supreme Court, since even thoughs deemed dependable, are clearly not. Getting out the conservative vote has taken on new importance.

The Joys of Middle Age, America.

Middle Age. A time of onset of countless maladies that can plague the otherwise healthy. Decreasing vision. Increasing lethargy and low energy.  Pains start where none existed before. Things you once enjoyed now cause problems.  Things that were elastic and tight are now loose and unresponsive.

All of that gets coupled with a fondness for times past - glory days - when everything was better. It also comes with a realization that very possibly, the best days have passed by.

Middle age can be a time of increasing wealth but often it is a time of unexpected economic struggle. Often things you could accomplish with ease can be done faster, cheaper, and more efficiently by someone younger, hungrier and with more gusto than you. It makes that economic precipice all the more dangerous.

It would seem by that definition that perhaps the United States of America have reached middle age.  Pretty much all of the above apply to America. Can a country reach middle age? Most countries that have been great powers have reached an apex have then waned. Perhaps it is the nature of nations to rise and fall. Perhaps America is no different.

Invitation to Left Coast Rebel

Tim at Left Coast Rebel has invited me to cross-post my posts there.  I'm flattered, and looking forward to the opportunity.  It's especially surprising since I'm not on the Left Coast, and I'm not exactly sure how they are defining Rebel, but I don't consider myself one.  Moreover, I'm not even an American, though I truly wish I were.  I'm stuck in Canada with the 40' snow drifts, seal meat and igloos. Hopefully you don't take that view of Canada seriously.  

In fact right now there are a lot of good things about being in Canada. We have a conservative government.  Our debt to GDP ratio is roughly 35% compared to roughly 100% in the United States.  Our government is trying to cut debt and reduce taxes.  We're interesting in producing domestic oil. As a nation we seem to have, at least temporarily, learned from years of progressive liberalism and borderline socialism and unlike the United States, we're headed in the right direction.

Saturday Learning Series Bonus - Liberty & Economics

A bonus Saturday Learning Series post today, on Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973).   

Ludwig von Mises  was a man who never stopped fighting for freedom: not when the Nazis burned his books, not when the Left blackballed him at universities, not when it seemed as if statism had won. With courage and genius, he fought big government until the day he died ... in 25 books, hundreds of articles, and more than 60 years of teaching.

His work is part of a foundational conservative view of economics and freedom.

A quick thought on Thomas Paine.

In his introduction to the book Common Sense, Thomas Paine wrote "Time makes more converts than reason." in defense of his ideas that had not yet taken absolute hold in the colonies. The sentence in itself explains the evolution of ideas like socialism. Once an idea is put out there, I've said before that genie can never go back in the bottle. Thomas Paine's line means it's worse, much worse, than that when it comes to socialism. What it means is that socialism has had a long time to get a foothold in people's thoughts. It will continue to get converts just as will the idea of 'liberty and justice for all'.

It's not a matter of hoping that the latter idea (liberty) gains a foothold faster than the former (socialism). It's a more universally appealing idea, isn't it? Even if it is however, it's the duty of everyone who values freedom to proclaim it's virtue and it's importance. Freedom neglected, is freedom foregone.

What is Liberty?

I'm in radio silence this week, or at least out of WiFi range.

While I'm away, learn liberty.  Then deal with it.

Liberty versus Virtue:

Liberty versus Security:

Liberty versus Community:

Liberty versus Equality: