Blamestorming and Guiltmongering

In 2006 Prime Minister Stephen Harper apologized for the Head Tax, a levee charged against Chinese immigrants to Canada. This tax is rightly considered to be among the most racist laws ever passed in Canada, and the apology was the right thing to do, regardless of how long ago this injustice took place. It was also proper to compensate those who had paid the tax.

For some raised in this age of collectivized guiltmongering and blamestorming that apology was obviously not enough.

So now the children of those Chinese immigrants that paid the head tax, but who died before the apology was issued feel that "The apology was not as meaningful to us as it was to other [Chinese families],” and that “The federal government left out a large chunk of people and you have to find some way you can meaningfully provide redress for them.”

Left out? Excuse me? I'll quote from the PM's speech, you tell me who was left out...

"On behalf of the people and government of Canada, we offer a full apology to Chinese-Canadians for the head tax and express our deepest sorrow for the subsequent exclusion of Chinese immigrants."

Did the PM say, that the apology was only to those that paid the tax? No. It was issued in good faith to all Chinese-Canadians.

That can only mean one thing... It means that the "meaningful redress" that these non-suffering survivors are talking about is nothing more (or less) than "victim" talk for give me some money.

That is ridiculous. I would like just one of these poor downtrodden souls to explain to me and to show me in objective terms just how a law to which they were never subjected, which has been rescinded since 1923 has ever affected them in the slightest possible way. Hell, Sid Chow Tan, the president of the Head Tax Families Society of Canada was born on May 20, 1949, 26 years after the law was removed from the books.

I would wager that since the law was repealed 87 years ago that at least 90% of those family members calling for "meaningful redress" (money) are like Mr. Tan, and were not even born when the law was struck down.

But this particular call for restitution (as opposed to the original) really isn't about the effects of the law at all is it?

No.

It's a not so subtle reminder that there were times when Canadians and their government acted with malice and racism. But more than that it is about holding current generations hostage to collectivized guilt.

Aside from the stated goal to "promote racial harmony amongst all Canadians" the Head Tax Families Society of Canada by pursuing this frivoulous claim to collective hardship is only continuing to divide Canadians from Canadians based on a historic aberration and race politics.

Getting away from it all; why we really need to find Galt's Gulch

The real problem is we are constrained. No matter where you go, you will always be in the reach of others, most of who are determined to make sure you pay your fair share of their entitlements. The siren call of living off the means of others continues to be the number one enemy of freedom, and indeed, there is little that can be done, since it is a rational choice for an individual to attempt to shift their burdens onto someone else.  It is also rational to attempt to dominate others by force if you wish to take their wealth for yourself; Socialism and Warlords are really just different facets of the same thing.

Personal "Galt's Gulches" are quite possible, and I have blogged on this subject in the past. A virtual "New Atlantis" based on Internet connectivity may also be possible, especially if the medium of exchange is something mutually agreed upon by the members (trading useful information and barter may not be as efficient as cash, but is certainly less accessible to the agents of the State).

No, the solution must involve escaping entirely from the clutches of the State, but also in leaving a beacon for like-minded people to follow. In the present day and age, we have a destination: space.

Since the 1980’s, a large and growing body of science and literature has been devoted to the problems of settling in the environment of outer space. Much of this is actually recycled, amazingly, thinkers like Konstantin Tsiolkovsky were writing on the subject as early as 1903. Most of the ideas have simply been refined with the addition of a century of scientific and technological development. Today we are on the threshold of actually achieving inexpensive spaceflight. Private companies like “Virgin Galactic” have working prototypes of commercial spacecraft that can bring people to the edge of space, and developments like IEC Fusion (being developed by EMC2 Energy) will bring cheap energy which can be harnessed for propulsion beyond Earth Orbit.

So, what's the problem? A society with access to cheap energy (which can be generated in theory by low cost devices that determined individuals or small companies can produce) would seem to be the definition of an Earthly paradise. The real problem is that while the powers of the individual could be increased, the power of the State could increase overwhelmingly. As well, vast increases in available luxury and wealth would be used to bribe the "sheeple" and keep them quiet in the face of an ever increasing "soft tyranny". 

New horizons are needed to draw the best out of people, and inspire those who by accident or design are unable to follow. The end of the middle ages in Europe came not when the New World was discovered (for the nth time) but when it was publicized: (Via Instapundit)

HAPPY COLUMBUS DAY: Many in the West will demonstrate their fierce originality and intellectual independence today by condemning Christopher Columbus using the same shopworn cliches they used last year. For those of a different bent, I recommend Samuel Eliot Morison’s Admiral of the Ocean Sea : A Life of Christopher Columbus, which takes a somewhat different position. Here’s an excerpt:

At the end of 1492 most men in Western Europe felt exceedingly gloomy about the future. Christian civilization appeared to be shrinking in area and dividing into hostile units as its sphere contracted. For over a century there had been no important advance in natural science and registration in the universities dwindled as the instruction they offered became increasingly jejune and lifeless. Institutions were decaying, well-meaning people were growing cynical or desperate, and many intelligent men, for want of something better to do, were endeavoring to escape the present through studying the pagan past. . . .

Yet, even as the chroniclers of Nuremberg were correcting their proofs from Koberger’s press, a Spanish caravel named Nina scudded before a winter gale into Lisbon with news of a discovery that was to give old Europe another chance. In a few years we find the mental picture completely changed. Strong monarchs are stamping out privy conspiracy and rebellion; the Church, purged and chastened by the Protestant Reformation, puts her house in order; new ideas flare up throughout Italy, France, Germany and the northern nations; faith in God revives and the human spirit is renewed. The change is complete and startling: “A new envisagement of the world has begun, and men are no longer sighing after the imaginary golden age that lay in the distant past, but speculating as to the golden age that might possibly lie in the oncoming future.”

Christopher Columbus belonged to an age that was past, yet he became the sign and symbol of this new age of hope, glory and accomplishment. His medieval faith impelled him to a modern solution: Expansion.

A community of people who are fully engaged in bringing new worlds to life will certainly develop a much different view of life and society than indolent masses who are being kept like fattened sheep in a pen. Where every hand at the wheel is important, the habits of hard work, thrift and planning become paramount, much like frontier society during the colonization of North America between the 1500’s and the closing of the frontier in the 1870’s. Even today, much of the difference between cultural conservatives and liberals can be traced to the environment: conservatives tend to live in small towns and rural environments, while liberals tend to live in cities. Far less surplus wealth exists in the countryside to feed populations of moochers, and those who do live that lifestyle often do so at the expense of family and friends who agree to provide support.

There are fewer extremes of wealth as well in such environments, allowing people to deal with each other as equals, rather than as masters and servants. While ideas like an “elect” might never die out, the ability to constantly expand to new environments and harvest new resources will provide an endless counterbalance:

Morison’s book is superb, and I recommend it highly as an antidote to the simplistic anti-occidental prejudice of today — which, as Jim Bennett has noted, has roots that might surprise its proponents:

This is primarily an effect of the Calvinist Puritan roots of American progressivism. Just as Calvinists believed in the centrality of the depravity of man, with the exception of a minuscule contingent of the Elect of God, their secularized descendants believe in the depravity and cursedness of Western civilization, with their own enlightened selves in the role of the Elect.

A simple prophecy

Lady Thatcher made a spot on observation which predicts and explains the (coming) total failure of the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress:

“The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money” –Margaret Thatcher.

Stock up on canned goods and barterable skills

An Army of Brownshirts?

Senator Obama has proposed a Civilian National Security Force with the same "power and funding" as the Armed Forces. As a student of history, this doesn't sound very comforting; since most totalitarian regimes developed parallel armed forces to the military (think of the Soviet MVD "Ministry of the Interior" troops for a simple example). While creating an army of Brownshirts or Stormtroopers may not be the reason for a Civilian National Security Force, we need to know what, exactly, it is. (I note that we potentially have lots of integration issues considering how our forces are intertwined through NORAD, Northern Command, NATO etc.)

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2008/11/01/civilian-national-security-force/

Civilian National Security Force
BY Herschel Smith

So Obama wants to quit relying on the U.S. military alone to implement U.S. national security objectives. Okay, in contemporary slang, The Captain’s Journal is “down with that.” So he’s going to get the State Department playing on the same side as the military? Er … maybe not.

“Just as powerful, just as strong, and just as well funded.” So the astute observer and deep thinker might reflect for a minute and be compelled to pose several questions (although the MSM won’t).

1. How will this Civilian National Security Force (hereafter CNSF) be just as powerful as men with guns, artillery, ordnance, war ships and aircraft?
2. What will make the CNSF “just as strong” as the U.S. Marine Corps?
3. How will this CNSF implement national security policy?
4. Since the 2009 budget includes just over half a trillion dollars for defense spending (The Captain’s Journal supports this, and calls for even more), and since it is judged that this CNSF be “just as well funded” as the military, where will this half a trillion dollars come from?
5. Finally, if he didn’t really mean that this CNSF would be the beneficiary of half a trillion dollars (to do with we don’t know what), then why did he say so?

At any rate, these questions seem to be compelled by the proposal. The best bet, however, is that the MSM won’t pose a single one of them (but we do get to add another snappy sounding category to our stable of articles - Civilian National Defense Force).

A Short History of the Future

Not SF, but a series of predictions based on what I am seeing today:

Regardless of who is elected President, the United States will undergo internal turbulence which will cause them to take their eyes off the ball. If Senator Obama wins, expect a "tax whiplash" and a real economic meltdown, while if Senator McCain wins, expect paralysis as an obdurate Congress to obstruct him every step of the way. The looming financial difficulties faced by the United States (particularly Social Security and the runaway growth of "entitlements") cannot be addressed by the platforms advocated by either candidate.

Russia and China will move rapidly to fill the power vacuum. Expect them to use a combination of economic muscle and diplomatic hijacking of international fora like the UN and WTO to impose rules to their liking. (Imagine them coming to collect the bill for "Carbon Credits" from Kyoto, for example). Plundering Western treasuries through the guise of "cost sharing measures" for "International projects" is another possibility. They may also cooperate to a greater or lesser degree against the growth of Radical Islam in Central Asia, although their goals will diverge to a certain extent. The EU may well throw in with Russia in order to secure energy supplies and also to deal with unassimilated Islamic populations within Europe (i.e. by providing diplomatic cover and military muscle while the Europeans throw the immigrants out). China will work to secure energy supplies and resources from Africa, Central Asia and the Middle East. Russia and China will have no qualms about imposing a "Roman" peace if that suits their aims.

Longer term, China will have demographic difficulties due to the one child policy (probably starting @ 2020) as large numbers of single men become the biggest demographic. The Chinese are notorious racists, so the idea of Han men intermarrying with other ethnic groups (even non Han Chinese) could be a big issue internally. Mark Styen points out one possible solution; "China could become the first gay superpower since Sparta". More likely a great deal of social and economic turbulance will occur.

Beyond that, Russia will cease to be a "Great Power" in the 2030's, as their demographic crash cuts the population of ethnic Russians in half. The EU will be suffering from the same problem (and so will Canada and Japan, but these are second and third tier powers in the big picture)

So look for a decade of artificially imposed stability by the "Big Two" (or possibly "Big Three" if the EU gets a Mussolini in charge; the set up is a jumbo sized version of the "Fascist Corporate State" and a little ruthless organization might actually make the trains run on time...), followed by turmoil as the demographic rugs get pulled out from under them.

What is less clear is how the United States will fare during this period. It is quite clear they will pull in their horns for part of the time, and the Big Two/Three will certainly see international relations and organizations are tilted to the disadvantage of the Americans. On the other hand, the Americans are very clever and resiliant (from a cultural perspective. The DC Beltway seems to mark a cultural boundary line inside of which the opposite applies), and no doubt the appeal of America will continue as a destination for the clever and ambitious people of the world. As well, the United States does not have either of the demographic issues their competitors have. They also have the unique strength of being an Oceanic power, capable of projecting trade and force on a global scale, something that the other powers lack. India is a potential Oceanic power in the Indian Ocean basin, linkage with the United States should be encouraged and exploited in all areas.

This is hardly the future envisioned by Fukyama in "The End of History", nor the "Road Warrior" future Robert Kaplan portrayed in "The Coming Anarchy".....

I'm not liking this future........