New Book

 

 

$21.95 hardcover · 224 pages
9978-1594037641-January 2015

PRE-ORDER YOUR COPY AT

www.amazon.com
www.amazon.ca
www.amazon.co.uk

The theme of The Great Divide is that the populations of the democratic world, from Boston to Berlin, Vancouver to Venice, are becoming increasingly divided from within, due to a growing ideological incompatibility between modern liberalism and conservatism. This is partly due to a complex mutation in the concept of liberal democracy itself, and the resulting divide is now so wide that those holding to either philosophy on a whole range of topics: on democracy, on reason, on abortion, on human nature, on homosexuality and gay marriage, on freedom, on the role of courts … and much more, can barely speak with each other without outrage (the favorite emotional response from all sides). Clearly, civil conversation at the surface has been failing -- and that could mean democracy is failing.

This book is an effort to deepen the conversation. It is written for the non-specialist, and aims to reveal the less obvious underlying ideological forces and misconceptions that cause the conflict and outrage at the surface -- not with any expectation the clash of values will evaporate, but rather that a deeper understanding will generate a more intelligent and civil conversation.

As an aid to understanding, the book contains a handful of Tables directly comparing modern liberal and conservative views across a range of fundamental moral and political “issues” so that curious readers can answer the book’s main question: “Where Do You Stand?” An interesting result in testing this exercise has been the number of people who find they “think” one way, but “live” another.    

 

Good Reading
Essays (37)
Wednesday
Apr052017

An Autopsy On "The Humanities"

Speaking as a one-time English Professor, I would say this essay by the American writer James Walker, recently posted online with Quillette Magazine, accurately exposes the intellectual rot in the so-called Humanities.

**************

Over the last three or four decades, the humanities have witnessed a shift so massive that it is barely noticed anymore. What was once an upstart movement has achieved the status of a truly successful usurper—normality. The leather arm patched ancien régime has been exiled to the land of past things. Horn-rimmed glasses, tattoos, and dyed hair no longer occupy the periphery, but the center. It is a revolution so thorough that it has completely painted over the canvas of our mental imagery. If you consider the stereotypical picture of a literature professor at a major university today, a myriad of images might come to mind—so many, in fact, that it might be impossible to conjure a single, coherent figure. However, what almost certainly won’t come to mind is a Byron-quoting septuagenarian in tweed.

This revolution has been political. Entire disciplines—Literature, Anthropology, Sociology, and the various interdisciplinary programs that end in the word “Studies” – have all become more strongly associated with a particular species of left-wing interpretation that now influences the broader discourse in journalism and on social media. In some departments, the social categories of analysis—race, class, and gender—have attained complete hegemony. The most recent convention of the Modern Language Association, the most prominent organization associated with the study of language and literature, hosted three times as many panels on post-colonialism as it did on Shakespeare. Like so many other areas of study, a consensus has been reached in English and Comparative Literature that the aims of one’s research should be about more than a body of knowledge or a disciplinary canon. Critique, as it is understood, is ultimately a criticism of the society (not the author) that produced a given text; all literary criticism reduces to social criticism. The contemporary literature professor need not even be an expert on any particular author or literary figure, but can be expected to be a master at applying a particular interpretive lens such as Queer Theory or Critical Race Theory.

The reality that the humanities and social sciences seem to be increasingly attracting one particular kind of person with one, very distinct, understanding of the world can be seen in other disciplines as well. Entire fields and subfields such as Diplomatic History and Military History are on the precipice of extinction, as more and more current and aspiring historians ignore or abandon these fields for the sexier (and more explicitly ideological) fields in Cultural and Social History.

What has happened in Literature and History departments as well as in other disciplines draws attention to something rarely considered in discussions concerning intellectual diversity in higher education. Conservatives will point to statistics such as the imbalance in the ratio between registered Democrats and Republicans as evidence of a political imbalance. Students it is argued are only getting one side of the story. While this sentiment is certainly understandable, it ignores an element of the current phenomena that might be even more deleterious to student learning and thus all the more intractable. The problem isn’t simply one of political imbalance, an absence of parity between Left and Right voices, but the extent to which humanities departments have become politicized.

The possibility that one might read a manuscript or approach a cultural or philosophical question from a perspective that isn’t explicitly political is now often dismissed as either naive or not worthwhile. In this way, the humanities have constructed a sort of ideological prison house for themselves. One of the most compelling features of humanistic study is the inexhaustibility of interpretations—the capacity to engage a text, a cultural practice, or an age-old philosophical question and derive new meanings and new possibilities from it. As the humanities have become subsumed into a larger political project, the possible interpretations that one may entertain have become narrowed to explicitly politicized readings. An education in the humanities risks becoming nothing more than a political education—that is to say, an education that isn’t worth pursuing for anyone other than the already-converted activist.

Imagining the lack of intellectual diversity as an exclusively political problem—a mere injustice to conservatives—fails to grasp the real stultifying effect on our collective intellectual life. The consequences of the hyper-politicization of the humanities go much further than the silencing of opposing voices. The understanding of criticism and interpretation as a primarily political act—one that should “unmask” the structural machinations of power or inform activism—also precludes readings and perspectives from a much wider spectrum of human experience, most of which (despite the protestations of certain critics) is not inherently political. Some approaches to art and culture, such as the contemplation of a work’s aesthetic qualities independent of its political or social content, seem to have been retired along with their tweed-clad exponents. Other paradigms, such as an analysis of literature informed by the current scholarship coming from the cognitive sciences, are aborted before they see the light of day.

One definition of fundamentalism is the tyranny of a single interpretation—the insistence upon the exclusive veracity of a single reading of a text, of one lens through which to view the world, or of one way of existing in it. Much of the humanities have entered into a new theocratic age, unable to imagine an intellectual life outside of a narrow set of political concepts. Far from achieving human and artistic emancipation, the fallout of this political turn has resulted in a new captive mind lingering behind the bars of its own ideological commitments, bound by its own lack of curiosity.

The solution to hyper-politicization involves more than “affirmative action” for the Right, in which a Marxist-feminist reading of Middlemarch is balanced by a conservative-libertarian reading. Instead, the humanities are in desperate need of a perestroika that opens up the possibility for scholars and students to pursue the full range of intellectual interests, political or otherwise, that might lead one to embrace the life of the mind in the first place.

This is unlikely to happen anytime soon. As political polarization deepens, both sides are more likely to entrench themselves further in the institutions that they see as their turf rather than concede ground. Nevertheless, the first step toward liberating the captive mind is to believe its emancipation to be possible.

 

James Walker is an American writer and critic. You can follow him on Twitter @jamesdcwalker

Thursday
Mar302017

Why Communalism Can't Work

This Snapshot is taken from: The Trouble With Canada ...Still! (BPS Books, 2010).                      

***************       

 

1) The foundational ideal is that all individuals and families should surrender their private ambitions for the common good, because private work is selfish, whereas common work is altruistic. In the beginning, “equality” is the core value.

 2) Practically speaking it is assumed that once stage 1) is achieved and all are working together for a common goal, machinery and costs will be lower because all work will be coordinated: ten families in a cooperative won’t need ten tractors, and so on. Each stage of work will be coordinated for real need, rather than for profits, resulting in less cost and less waste, therefore more production and wealth for all.

 3) So communal work begins, and as long as moral suasion is high, all do in fact cooperate and the “plan” seems to work. For a while. But soon the obvious problems of different workers attitudes, skill levels, work output, personal capacities, and different care of tools and machinery, and so on, raises its head.

 4) Workers begin to notice that because all the equipment is now held in common, it is not looked after with care and pride as it used to be because no one stands to lose personally. So machinery and tools break down. But as they belong to no one in particular, no one can be blamed. So repairs and costs for new tools musts be spread to all equally. At this point … more equality begins to look a little unfair. Some are being asked to pay for the carelessness of others.

 5) Soon, workers begin to notice that while they always used to work very hard and loved it because they and their families got ahead in life, not all workers are that way. Some are definitely slower than others, show up later, produce less, don’t tidy up as well after work, and grumble continuously about how hard the work is.

 6) The initial communal euphoria is beginning to wear thin, and the stronger and better workers are now resenting the fact that they are working twice as hard as others for the same reward. They begin to see that lazy workers have discovered they can “profit” from the system as “free-riders,” simply by doing less. Suddenly, things no longer look “equal.”

 8) So at this point, “equity” raises its head and workers begin to insist that equity (what is deserved) is a more fair and rational standard than equality (sharing equally, regardless of effort contributed).   

9)  By now, the plan is heading for moral and economic collapse. Some people start to recommend breaking up the commune and going back to private work and care of self and family. If the people are lucky, things simply revert slowly to normal traditional ways, the ideological wounds are licked all ’round, excuses are made, losses counted, and people go their own way, a little wiser. However, if the whole plan has been coercive from the start, the government’s planners start fining people, passing production quotas, and so on. In then end, they bring out their machine guns to force the desired result, and forced communalism continues until it rots from the inside out, as it did in the USSR. The lesson learned?

Equity works better than equality.

Monday
Mar272017

What "Euthansia" Is, and Is Not

If you ask most people to define "euthanasia", they will pause a little, then say it has something to do with helping someone who is old, or sick, or suffering, to die. They rarely consider the various complicated scenarios that crop up.

Here is a terse set of distinctions sent by a physician friend with whom a few of us were having a debate surrounding Canada's recent law legalizing euthanasia.

Before reading, I think it is useful to keep in mind that euthanasia is not about "letting" someone die of natural causes, keeping them as pain-free and comfortable as possible along the way,  with nursing, food, water, etc., as distinct from keeping them alive artificially.

 Rather, euthanasia is always about "making" someone die by the administration of life-ending drugs, injections, etc. 

Note: MAiD = Medical Aid in Dying

 ************

Euthanasia = making someone die (with the intent to end suffering, or for some other cause deemed compassionate by those who have legalized the killing procedure and those who administer it).

Voluntary Active Euthanasia (VAE) = patient consents, doc/nurse does it.
Non voluntary Active Euthanasia (NVAE) = patient can't consent, doc does it
Involuntary Active Euthanasia  (IAE) = patient doesn't want it, doc does it
Assisted Suicide (AS) = patient given means to end own life (patient self-administers)
MAiD = VAE for the most part.
AS often requires VAE if the AS isn't successful (eg, person not quite dead).
Issues:
MAiD changes the ontology of medicine. No one want to debate this very much.
Giving patients the right to universal access to MAiD creates a duty for others to offer and pay for it.
Finally, "Hard cases make bad laws". No one need die in pain. Terminal sedation means we can all pass quietly. Intent to relieve suffering by "turning up the morphine" often hastens death. It's been done forever. This is very different from giving meds with the intent to cause death.
Wednesday
Mar222017

Libertarianism is a Handmaid of the State

What follows is my response to a group of friends in our discussion of the Pros and Cons of Libertarianism:

******************* 

The libertarian argument, put plainly, would seem to be: do whatever you want as long as you don't harm me.  

Problem? There is nothing of the Good of all in it. It is purely a negative. My argument has been that libertarianism is in fact a form of co-operative statism.

  Can no one else see this? 

 Once you have a State that seeks to impose it's programs on all equally ("free" medical care, or, now, "death care" as euthanasia, for example) and society has been reduced to just a mass of free individuals (do what you want as long as you don't harm me), there is no common public vision of the Good upheld by the people to oppose the State‎. In fact, I would argue, there is nop longer "a people" - if by that term we mean a corporate body united by their vision of the common good.  

 This why I say that Libertarianism is the real handmaid to Statism, because it conceives of "society" as a fiction. But society has always been considered by Conservatives as a real entity bonded by a voluntarily upheld public philosophy that alone has the authority to resist the coercive powers of the State. 

 It is true that society, so conceived, always imposes it's "authority" on its members‎. But... 

 KEY POINT: "authority" is not "Power". 

So, a distinction is essential: 

 The moral "authority" of your parents, pastor, teacher, coach, friend, etc., can be escaped, at a price (shunning? Exclusion from a group? A spanking? Expelled from school?). 

 But "Power" is coercive (laws of state, police, threat of jail, compulsory taxes, death penalty, etc), and cannot be escaped‎. 

Libertarians, from the start, have always failed to make this distinction. And this is their Achilles heel.

 J.S. Mill, for example, argued (in his booklet On Liberty), that what he called "Public Opinion," (his Caps) is a form of coercion. But that is false. Your parent, pastor, boss, or coach may play a huge role in directing your life. But they cannot tax you, throw you in jail, or execute you. 

 Anyway, give it some deep meditation, and when this point hits you, I think you will see that to do its insidious work of destroying all voluntary group Authority in the interests of replacing it with Power, the all-powerful State absolutely needs a libertarian public philosophy upheld by what have become the morally-disconnected masses (we can't say "the people"), this mass conceived solely as ‎a mere collection or aggregate of individuals (in a now thoroughly atomized society) upholding as its highest Good, only a pathetic, and selfish negative (don't harm me).

Saturday
Mar182017

Islamist Terrorism in Canada, Against Canada, & Against the West

   What follows is drawn from The Trouble With Canada ... Still! and includes info up to 2010. Serious enough?                           

 

*  Fact: Canada is the only country on Osama Bin-Laden’s original seven-country hit list, that is still to be bombed.

* The bomb that killed or injured more than 1,400 people in Sri Lanka’s capital city, Colombo, in 1996 was paid for from a Canadian bank account (Source: Paul Collier, The Bottom Billion)

 * At a Terrorism Conference in May, 2004 the US Attorney General and the FBI revealed that Abderraouf  Jdey, found with a martyrdom video, and Amer El-Maati, a licenced pilot who wanted to crash a plane into a US building … were both Canadians.

* US Intelligence awoke to the fact that Canada nurtures and exports terrorism in 1997 when one Gazi Mezer crossed our border into the USA to blow up the Atlantic Avenue Subway in Brooklyn.

* One of Osama Bin-Laden’s confidants is nicknamed “El Kanadi” – the Canadian.

* The Mississauga-based Al Fauz Institute has featured Azzam Tamimi as a faculty member who has proclaimed: “I don’t believe in democracy anymore,” explicitly praises suicide bombers, and says he is willing to blow himself up in Israel.

* In March 2009 Canadian Momin Khawaja was sentenced for financing and building explosive detonators for use in terrorist attacks.

* In a 2009 Quebec case, Sid Namouth was pronounced guilty of planning terrorist attacks.

* Zakaria Amara, leader of the Toronto 18, who pleaded guilty on October 8, 2009, confessed that his plan for U-Haul trucks loaded with explosives (and metal chips to cause more civilian casualties) were meant “to cripple Canada” and to be detonated mid-November at the Toronto Stock Exchange, at the CSIS office, and at a military base between Toronto and Kingston. In January 2010 Amara was sentenced to life in prison.

* In February 2010, Said Namouth, a Moroccan man living in Canada since 2003 who spread hatred from his Montreal apartment, was sentenced to life in prison. On his blog he wrote: “Terrorism is in our blood, and with it we will drown the unjust.” 

* The ritual Islamic prayer, says Tarek Fatah (former head of the Muslim Canadian Congress, an anti-extremist Muslim group), “asking for the defeat of Christians and Jews, and the Victory of Islam, is not unique;” it is uttered by many Imams across Canada, and is “spreading hate instead of harmony.”

* In May of 2009 Canada’s CBC quoted an anonymous source who claimed that Al-Shabab, a Somali Taliban-style terrorist organization has recruited 20 to 30 young Canadian men.

* On March 8, 2010 Canada added Al-Shabab to its list of banned terrorist organizations.

* On January 3, 2009, Al Qaeda called on Muslims “to kill every Western diplomat on the Arabian Peninsula.” There are Canadian diplomats there.

* In December 2001 the National Post listed 16 Islamic terrorists who had been living in Canada, most of whom had been convicted of terrorism by other countries. They were never charged in Canada.

* Among defendants in the $1 Trillion dollar lawsuit against 9/11 attackers are Muslim groups such as The Benevolence International Fund, Islamic Relief Organization, Muslim World league, Int’l Islamic Relief Organization, and the SAAR Foundation – all of which have a presence in Canada, several with offices in Ottawa.

* As of 2006 Canada, acting on a British tip, laid its first charge of terrorism - against Mohammad Khawaja – for involvement in a London bombing plot.

* On his Saudi-based web-portal Islam Q & A, Muslim cleric Al-Munajjid, who has a large Canadian following has (quoting the supposed words of Muhammad) “urged Muslim youth not to live among the non-Muslims, unless the objective of living in the West was to convert the non-Muslim to Islam” (National Post, November 9, 2009).

* On Christmas Day 2009, Umar Abdulmutallab was prevented by passengers on a flight from Europe to Detroit from igniting explosives hidden in his underwear. In a speech reported in March 2009, warning the USA to think more pro-actively about terrorist possibilities, Israeli Agent Juval Aviv said he was now just “waiting for some suicidal maniac to pour liquid explosives on his underwear.” Prophetic, what?  

* Conversion from Islam to Christianity (or any other religion) is punishable by beheading.

* As of 2008, “Muslim countries or groups are either at war or in a hostile truce with every civilization that Islam abuts, from Nigeria too Xinjiang [China]” (Caldwell, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe, p. 163)

Friday
Mar172017

Historical Examples of Inter-cultural Violence in Canada 

    Some Historical Examples of Canadian Inter-Cultural Violence Prior to 9/11 

. * In April 1868 Thomas D’Arcy McGee was assassinated in Montreal by an Irish terrorist who was continuing the Irish Fenian conflict on Canadian soil.

*  In the 1920s the first organized terror threats against Canada came from “The Sons of Freedom,” a minority sect of the Doukhobors, a Russian religious community dedicated to … non-violence. Over four decades this sect was responsible for “over a thousand arson and bomb attacks” (Bell, Cold Terror, p.21). They burnt many Doukhobor villages, planted dynamite bombs, attacked schools, and paraded naked. In October 1924 they blew up a train, killing six people including the main Doukhobor leader. Canadian police stopped them only by the early 1960s.

* Beginning in the early 1960s Cuban exiles from Fidel Castro’s island socialism attacked Cuban interests in Canada, mostly in Montreal; Serbs and Croats angry over ethnic tensions in what was then Yugoslavia attacked each other in Canada; and the Arab-Israeli conflict (ongoing) became violent in the 1970s (then mostly aimed at diplomats in Canada).

* In October 5, 1970, British Diplomat James Cross was kidnapped, and on October 17, Vice-Premier of Québec Pierre Laporte was murdered by French-Canadian terrorists of the FLQ (Front de libération du Québec). They were fighting to separate Québec from Canada and form a new French nation. The men responsible served jail terms of only seven to eleven years.

* Beginning in the late 1970s, Armenian terrorists bent on revenge for what Turkey had done to their grandparents in World War I, targeted the Air Canada baggage center for bombing, murdered a Turkish Military Attaché (Colonel Altikat) on an Ottawa street, then murdered a Canadian security guard (Claude Brunelle) during an armed takeover of the Turkish Embassy in Ottawa.

* In 1982 “The Squamish Five” bombed a hydro-electric station in B.C., and a Litton Industries building in Toronto. They were protesting the “American War Machine.” They were eventually caught and jailed.

* A videotape of dozens of turbaned Sikhs at the Toronto airport on July 6, 1984, shows them all standing with their swords raised in the air, chanting “Death to Indira Ghandi!” On October 31 of that year she was assassinated by her own Sikh bodyguard. Hindus retaliated. CSIS warned that this would lead to “serious animosity between the two groups in Canada.”

* In 1985 Sikh terrorists belonging to the Canadian branch of Babbar Khalsa, a radical group fighting for their own Sikh State (Khalistan) succeeded in blowing up Air India flight #182 killing all 329 passengers, of which 280 were Canadian citizens. They were also behind the attempted destruction of another Air India flight that failed, when the bomb they planted exploded in Narita Airport, killing two Japanese baggage handlers. The court case over this attack took over twenty years to conclude at a cost of $130 million. Neither of the two Sikh-Canadians charged was ever convicted. One witness prepared to testify against them was murdered. Only one man, Inderjit Singh Reyat was convicted - for making the Narita bombs. He received a five-year sentence in 2003. In 2003 Babbar Khalsa was finally listed as a terrorist organization, eighteen years after the Air India tragedy. Prior to this it was given charitable status and gave Canadian tax receipts for its blood money until 1996 when this status was revoked. Canada’s Air India terrorism attack was the largest mass murder in Canadian history, the largest attack in history prior to 9/11, and for Canada was proportional to the American 9/11 attack in which around 3,000 innocents died. But in contrast to the American public reaction, neither the Canadian reaction was muted – perhaps for racial reasons: the victims, though all Canadian citizens, were ethnic Indians. Prime Minister Mulroney embarrassed himself publicly by expressing his condolences to India. The separatist Khalistan movement has mostly fizzled in India, but “maintains a small but loud presence here in Canada.” (National Post, October 28, 2009).

* In 1997 Canadian Sikh radicals attacked Sikh moderates with knives and swords over Temple policy and control.

* In 1998 the Publisher of the Indo-Canadian Times, Tara Singh Hayer, was attacked and left paralyzed from the waist down; later the same year, he was  murdered. While no one has ever been charged, it is widely believed that this crime was carried out by Sikh extremists since he was prepared to provide incriminating evidence in connection with the Air India case. 

* Canadian terrorists are known to have taken part in: the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, bombings in Israel, political killings in India; the murder of tourists in Egypt; the 1995 bombing of the Egyptian Embassy in Islamabad that killed seventeen; a 1996 truck-bombing in Sri Lanka that killed almost 100 civilians;