David Brooks becomes just the latest American, who presumes upon his exceptionalist right to inhabit our peaceable hinterland as their refuge of last resort; their Iceland. This meme is becoming all too common, too promiscuous, and infectious down below. We have become their Elysium; their Potemkin village of Brigadoon. If Canada didn’t exist, Americans would have had to invent us.
It is only a matter of time and catalyst before their dam of schism breaks, threatening to swarm and overwhelm us with their swarthy masses of disgruntled partisans. Prudence and foresight demands that Canada build a Wall; a high, and mighty, and impregnable Wall of Separation, before these aliens spew into our borders and infect us with their vehemence and vitriol.
When did we consent to be their asylum; their outlet of outrage? I don’t recall us having that referendum. There is no statue of Sir Wilfred Laurier on Navy Island beckoning America, “Give me your disgruntled, your dissidents, your “outs”, your wearied partisans yearning to breathe peace.”
If ever that day should come, we should thank God for GPS. Otherwise, as one of their own wits has quipped, they would have had to wage a little war to find us.
Why would David Brooks assume that Canada wants him? The man may seem to have congenial manner. But can it he possibly that he is immune to the civic vitriol and discord that infests U.S. ideologues, politicos, pandering sycophants of the media, and the masses?
We are, at least in Anglo-Immigrant Canada, a moderate country, an Anglican country; thanks partially to the expulsion of their Episcopalians in the 1780s. Like N.T. Wright proclaimed, a typical representative of that Anglican elite, if you sign off on a minimalist set of premises, you’re in! You’re part of the family and citizenry!
When I backpacked around the Mediterranean in the late 1970s, I could virtually always tell a Yank from a Canuck. Although Americans attempted to ape our dialect; unlike they, there was palpable absence of strong or extreme opinion among our countrymen; or at least of opinion expressed. If Americans always want to be right, we just want to get along.
What need could Canada have of David Brooks? We are already a nation full of moderates. We actually have a genuine political center. We had hyphenated conservative pundits endorsing the NDP party in the recent election. And the present NDP leader had purportedly been offered a job from the CPC. The Utah of Canada voted NDP in the last year. And Calgary, the most conservative of urban centers had, until recently, banned gated communities, that tell-tale symptom of excessive socioeconomic disparity and ensuing civic rift. What could David Brooks possibly add to our discourse and saturated market of moderation?
Yes we have our demagogues, still hankering to be unleashed to untold havoc. Donald Sutherland’s mischievous cry for revolution; the Ford’s trumpeting to be the Sam Brownback of the North. But I think that we can yet quarantine that local outbreak of sociopolitical psychosis to the Upstairs, Downstairs neighbourhood of Toronto.
I for one, do not want to see the likes of David Brooks in our peaceable hinterland. I am a ideological moderate. And Brooks is a muddled moderate; good sensibilities but a tad incoherent. And we cannot have those other types swarming our country and tipping the delicate sociopolitical balance.
Canada needs to build a Wall; a high, and mighty, and impregnable Wall of Separation.
© Copyright John Hutchinson
I watch bemused the gladiatorial spectacle of Donald Trump from afar. He is, without doubt, a thuggish buffoon with the subtlety of mind of a solid cube; who pummels through prudence, rationality, empathy, civility, tact and virtue like a rhino in heat. He is the “ugly American”, raised to the third power, whose simpleton appeal to imbecility, confirms democracy’s devolution towards a Confederacy of Dunces.
The meretricious courtesans of political punditry hope that a fickle populace is merely toying with the witless minds and anxious hearts of a neglectful elite. They give the idiocracy too much wit.
Trump is the Rob Ford of the American Whatever. (It becomes practicably difficult to identify a consistent and rationally coherent ideology or feasible strategic policy to his constipated outbursts.) But with Rob Ford; even after a season of Jimmy Kimmel easy-to-make vignettes about our clown naturale; the Bulldozer of City Hall retained a stubborn third of the popular vote in Toronto, indeed of liberal Toronto; before our Ford finally suffered electoral defeat to cancer. I likewise suspect that contrary to “wish-upon-a-star” analysis, the Trump Nation will endure. The ramifications of the long decline of mind and culture of the American Idiocracy is finally coming to roost.
But Trump himself is not the actual threat. He is but a Storm Trooper of political demagogues to come; a barometer to would-be tyrants of the venality and imbecility at the heart of American politics; a harbinger of the effectual end of free civic society, except for its forms, and individual liberty, rule of law and peace.
In early 2009, I concluded that Junior Bush was the worse American president since James Buchanan; and anticipated that Haughty Obama would be worse still. (On this count, Obama has far exceeded even my expectations.) The defining criteria; failure to recognize and address the rapidly widening ideological, sociopolitical and economic schism, which threatens civic, even bloody, strife. But the Versailles by the Potomac remains in oblivious slumber; indeed contributing to the galloping rush to an imploding abyss, through even greater radicalization of both the Right and the Left.
But I didn’t imagine a three-peat. For what have we here? A WWF contest between the champion of mindlessness and the champion of mendacity; the mindlessness of Trump; the mendacity of Clinton. And the decaying hulk of Pax Americana depends upon these overgrown ignoramuses of entitlement.
Strategies against Nuclear Proliferation omitted a potential threat; that of fools and morons occupying the throne with the most guns; that supposed seat of civilizational sanity.
Listen carefully; do you not hear the gods laughing?
The views expressed by the participants here are solely their opinions and do not reflect the opinions of this media-organization.
How often have we witnessed TV networks preface religious and other programs with disclaimers that while they enable the airing of the ensuing show, they in no way endorse its content? It is not as if reputational concern for guilt by association is alien to the non-religious. How many of those on the Left were condemned as communists by Joseph McCarthy, simply for flirting with and having attended a socialist/communist meeting decades prior.
In the recent kick-off of Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign at Liberty University, how many liberal media organizations, pundits and commentators decried the forced attendance by Liberty’s students, (on pain of civic-style fines), which gave pubic impression of tacit support and endorsement of Cruz’s candidacy? And their critiques would be right. Many conservative entities likewise declaimed the hypocrisy of speaking for liberty of conscience while in the very process violating it.
Therefore, the desire of theists and like-minded moralists, who do not wish to endorse or appear to endorse an idea or ethical principle, ought not to be beyond comprehension. One may not concur with the substance of their objection. But the yearning not to be associated is not alien. Therefore, the social denigration and legal penalties, inflicted upon those who find same-sex marriage a conceptual travesty and same-sex eros an ethical travesty, emits of a suffocating stench of rational inconsistency, sophistry and hypocrisy.
And the drumbeats of civic conflagration approach ever closer and louder. Read more…
One year for the 22 Inuit children; 18 years for the dog.
My city has several “no-go” zones. People are literally banned from entering these neighborhoods and the government is complicit in arresting people that enter them without permission. The Arabic term for them is apparently “gated community.”
And they operate under Pariah Law, a strange set of rules unfamiliar to you and I. If you decorate your house the wrong way or become friendly with the wrong person, you become a pariah. The punishments for such breaches of the religion of wealth are severe and unforgiving.
They must always follow the great Profit, a piece of it be upon them always. According to their holy book, there are five pillars of their faith: (1) everyone must declare that there is no God but mammon, (2) everybody should do a line of coke five times a day facing the pool, (3) everyone should give to charity, provided the entire amount is tax-deductible and the bulk of it goes to pay friends and relatives as ’employees’ (4) all hired help should be paid a wage that encourages fasting and going without (5) everybody must make a pilgrimage to the plastic surgeon at least once in their lifetime.
I found the following script in the commentariat in an article by The Atlantic “Why the Muslim ‘No-Go-Zone’ Myth Won’t Die”. In three successive messages, a person with the label sweetjazz3 gave a pretty decent demonstration of apparently gentle, but derisively savage art of satire.
All hail sweetjazz3!
Should he/she ever wish to stand up, they are welcome to claim their prize, which is honorable mention in an obscure blog; because I believe in giving honour to whom honour is due.
It has been a working hypothesis since the late 1980s, and a firm assertion since the mid 2000s; that, to paraphrase Lord Chesterfield’s assessment of the French
In short, all the symptoms which I have ever met with in History, previous to great Civic Conflagrations and Wars, now exist and daily increase in America.1
This certainly comes to mind in recent talk of state nullification of Federal Government edicts and decrees by its executive branch, but more so from its judiciary. Nullification reaches back to Vice President John C. Calhoun (1825-32) who spearheaded use of this principle for South Carolina in the North-South tariff wars; one of the causes of the American Civil War, which has largely been forgotten. As the writer states:
But if some states can pick and choose laws, others will surely do the same—and in such a polarized national landscape, they’ll start picking and choosing increasingly contradictory options. Liberals states will start refusing to enforce laws they don’t like. (This happened with the Fugitive Slave Act, in fact; Wisconsin ruled the law unconstitutional; southerners who otherwise championed states’ rights objected; and the Supreme Court overruled it.) It’s a ticket to dissolving the union, all in the name of preventing same-sex unions.