Fitna

WARNING: The film contains hate speech, and persons in the film call for the murder of entire nations, the establishment of a totalitarian theocracy, praise Hitler and the holocaust and denounce liberalism, democracy and rational thought.

Also contains graphic visual content.

UPDATE: After hearing a/another prominent Canadian Muslim defend Islam as a religion of peace on CTV Newsnet this afternoon in response to the film I have just tried the video link again only to be informed that LiveLeak has removed the film because of credible threats on the lives of LiveLeak employees.

Peaceful eh?

Found It again.

Two systems battle for our souls

In Canada, we have an interesting split in our approach to things. The "west" is entrepreneurial and freewheeling, while the "east" is rule bound and bureaucratic. It is the Two Solitudes of Hugh Maclennan and Lord Durham. It is Trudeau with his determination of a single rightness that must be imposed versus a pragmatic acceptable of the possible and the reasonable.

Throughout most of human history, the top down model predominated. This worked fairly well through most of prehistory and history, since it essentially replicates the "authoritarian" leadership style taught to military leaders as being appropriate in emergencies. For most of human existence people lived in a constant state of emergency and there was little time to resolve problems before a large hungry animal or sword stroke resolved it for you.

The development of democratic and free market systems took a long time and is not fully accepted even now. Much of the success of the "Progressive" movement comes from manufacturing or exploiting emergencies then imposing "solutions". Institutions like the Academie Francaise and others attempt to systemically organize and categorize facts to provide the elite with the "best" solutions, but there is a fatal flaw to this in the long term; these organizations are biased to provide solutions pleasing to the rulers while to be truly effective they need to provide empirically correct solutions. If they are pleasing all the time their position is assured until they are swept away in some disaster they failed to avert, while if they strive to be "correct" all the time they run the risk of displeasing their masters and losing their position. The elite is also aware of the problem to some extent; if the solutions they implement "work", they remain on the throne for another season, while if they fail, they will be overtaken by some disaster as well.....

I suspect that societies based on the impersonal nature of the free market and the unfettered nature of individual freedoms gain their strength from the fact they ultimately do not have to answer to anyone, but are measured against an objective and empirical reality. (Ayn Rand’s ghost is sitting on the couch and having a cigarette while I write this). You might say or do something which upsets someone, or propose and implement a plan which no one else agrees with, but if your arguments are better or the results can be replicated and are better than previous results, why then these ideas and processes will filter into the general population and be adopted by almost anyone.

This is ultimately intolerable to the first category of rulers and wannabe dictators, which explains why “Progressives” employ such a wide ranging series of strategies to suppress discussion (Political Correctness, speech codes, HRC’s etc.) and devote so much time and effort to ignore or suppress facts, figures and metrics. Why debate a real climate scientist when the ad hominem attack of shouting "Climate Change Denier" is a so much faster and easier way to stop the debate?

This explanation is a bit different from the more common explanation of top down and hierarchical systems being brittle and inflexible in the face of unexpected problems, but I think it answers the question “why” such systems fail in a more understandable way than the usual appeal to interactions increasing at a geometric rate until they are unmanageable. After all, the Chinese civilization has been around for a long time with few stumbles, they have managed to discover a way of minimizing the damage that pleasing the Emperor can do to the system with a fairly strict system of meritocracy at the bureaucratic level.

Ultimately, there really is a point where complexity overwhelms the system, and equally there are real emergencies that require hands on attention by leaders assuming authoritarian powers. Liberal Democracies are still the best at dealing with these situations, any number of solutions are potentially available and leaders like Churchill, Roosevelt, Thacher or Reagan are waiting in the wings to try to find the best solution. Competing illiberal societies have a shortage of solutions and leaders, and that is why they fail in the end.

Canada had gone far down the illiberal, top down system favored by "Progressives". A look at the eastern half of the nation, where these attitudes have gained the greatest power is also a look at mostly have not Provinces and a greedy and timorous outlook on life. Here is where the demand for handouts and patronage is the loudest, where opposition to Canada taking a role as a "Leading Middle Power" is the strongest and where bureaucracy is most entrenched. The western half of Canada is less imbued with demands for patronage, handouts and bureaucracy, and as a result has become more dynamic in many fields.

Since Canada has been dominated at the federal level by "Progressives", our national decline is in direct proportion to how much Ottawa has been dominated by the imposition of a top down and hierarchical political culture. The current government can make limited gains against the tide, but must content itself with a process of slow starvation of the organs of bureaucratic power for now. Even in a majority situation, I suspect the process of reversing the culture will not be easy, and the cultural attitudes of the eastern provinces will be transmitted for a generation or more via university graduates, businessmen addicted to government handouts and the provincial and municipal governments desperate to cast blame on external factors to hide their own mistakes and maintain their positions of power.

For the reader, we must now work to overturn the top down and hierarchical systems wherever we find them. The current battle against the CHRC and all its clones is an important first step. Similar battles are being fought in other venues, such as the fight for Western grain farmers to sell their own product without State intervention, or Ontario taxpayers to control their own earnings. Its time to roll up our sleeves, and get to work.

An Inconsistent Truth

More Global Warming Heresy...

"Yeah, you know, like when you put your car into reverse you are causing it to enter a period of less rapid forward motion. Or when I gain a few pounds I am in a period of less rapid weight loss."

Huh?

Beg your pardon?

Religion of Litigation

Defame Islam, get sued?

Hey Islam… Get stuffed!

I await your indictment.

This aught to be good, Zip vs the Muslim World.

An Inconsistent Truth

The Anti-Global Warming Dog Pile

It’s a full tilt, body slamming, turf eating, elbow and knee filled fact frenzy!

http://davidwarrenonline.com/index.php?id=858

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=377568&p=1

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=364265

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/03/couple-of-inconvenient-facts-in-another.html

Add your links in the comments.

Little Kremlin on the Prairie

"The product of ones effort belongs to the person who made that effort in the first place and it is their undeniable right to do with it as they wish"

h/t - Making Sense with Nicholls

It's All About The Oil!!!

Yes it is.

There, feel better?

I do.

Now for the truly dense I’ll explain why. Bear with me, this next part involves actual principals of international relations, not just clichés and utopian cravings.

In this world there exists a concept we call sovereignty. The simple explanation of that notion for the purpose of this post is that nations have the right to act in and with their national self-interest in mind. There is nothing, no law, and no power that can usurp the ability of nations to exercise this self determination. The only thing limiting the ability of each nation to exert this sovereign power is their individual ability to back up their sovereignty with that other weapon in the arsenal of the modern state, the use of force.

Now, back to the war in Iraq. Yes, it is all about the oil. Eight out of the US’s top 15 oil suppliers hail from the Middle East. Those nations represent approximately 40% of the US’s oil supply. You do the math.

Oil is black gold, and in this case it is most certainly a major reason for the war. It is in the USA’s national self-interest to ensure that it has all the resources necessary to maintain the growth and stability of its economy. Today, tomorrow and always.

The US, acting in its self-interest needed to send a straightforward message to the nations of the Middle East. That message was “Do not screw with our supply”. It was delivered with shock and awe aforethought, it was not a mistake, there was no confusion, there was no failure of intelligence. The weapon of mass destruction that America feared was a threat to America’s supply of oil.

The preceding may have offended some sensibilities but I’m not done yet. You see America’s rough and ready pursuit of rational self-interest is also in our self interest. The US economy is the world’s largest economy; it is the engine of the world’s economy and our largest trading partner by far. If the cost to ensure the safety of that economy is one murderous dictator or one hundred it is well worth it.

So the next time some greasy utopian moron complains that it’s all about the oil, stop equivocating, repeat after me…

Yes it is.

What Do You Know, They Do Get It

They just don't like it...

Tax cuts by Conservatives leave government hamstrung: Critics

For me this is an "Oh Yeah Baby!" moment. Hamsring and handcuff the government? By all means, and don't forget to hobble and shackle it while you're there.

I don't want government to come running with bags of money (our money) every time a business gets a fiscal bloody nose, and there are damn few (if any) economic situations either global or national that will not, or can not correct themselves in a free market. Don't believe me, take his word for it.

"Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney signaled that he sees a glimmer of hope that financial markets are righting themselves, and cautioned authorities against overreacting with new rules that might ultimately hurt the economy."

Seems like Ms Rand is two for two...

"The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, and to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law."

Participatory Economics

Some people have no sense of history. I recently came across a post on the London Fog which attributed the idea of Participatory Economics to a Michael Albert. A quick perusal of the post and the related article on Wikipedia (I know, but it is a fast and easy first reference) gave me enough information to know that I had seen this idea before, and to predict the ultimate denouement of any society foolish enough to adopt it.

Participatory Economics, or Parecon as is is sometimes called, is one of the bizzare offshoots of Socialism. It seems most closely related to Communitarianism, or maybe an extension of the Cooperative movement's ideologies. The tangled logic that Michael Albert and his supporters use to explain the theoretical advantages of Parecon is worth reading if only to hone your own skills in debate. Don't let the fact that human nature, economic incentives and historical evidence is completely ignored or discounted by Parecon theorists dissuade you; it is important to know and understand how the other side thinks and frame their arguments. Incidentally, the very premise of Parecon and its socialist cousins is that people are not free agents, and cannot take actions to change their circumstances inside the framework of free market democracies. One only has to listen to the musical stylings ofDavid Allan Coe to undercut that argument.

Now I could go into a long post and describe the various ins and outs of the theory, and rip holes in the flimsy fabric with arguments drawn from classical economics and history, but this has already been done for us, and much better. I knew I had seen the basic premise of Parecon and its ultimate denouement before; Ayn Rand laid it out in her 1957 novel "Atlas Shrugged" in the story of Starnesville and the destruction of 20th Century Motors . Novelists apparently have a better understanding of history and real life than economists.

Hurry!

For all of you who want to strike a blow for freedom, read this post from Free Dominion and write the CHRC at the address given. Remember to maintain a polite and professional attitude. CC your letter to your local media outlets (print and electronic) as well as your local Member of Parliament, and blogburst this everywhere you can.

The more people who respond and the greater the exposure given to this issue, the better our chances of ending this assault against our freedoms and liberties! Die free or die trying.

http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=96805

CHRC taking submissions on issue of closed hearing! WRITE!

The CHRC has said that they will take submissions from the public on the issue of the closed Warman v Lemire tribunal hearing, but the submissions must be made by March 17th.

Please write a polite and professional letter to Ms Jessie Cyr outlining why you believe the hearing should be public.

If you can't write a polite letter, PLEASE DON'T WRITE. You will only hurt our case.

Here is my submission:

Quote:

March 12, 2008 Canadian Human Rights Tribunal 160 Elgin Street 11th Floor Ottawa, ON K1A 1J4 Tel: (613) 995-1707 Email: gcyr@chrt-tcdp.gc.ca Attn: Ghislaine (Jessie) Cyr - Registry Officer Re: Warman v Lemire (T1073/5405) Dear Ms Cyr I am writing to request that the Warman v Lemire tribunal hearing that is scheduled for March 25, 2008 be open to the public. It has come to our attention that evidence will be given that suggests that CHRC investigator Dean Steacy created an anonymous account on a website we owned shortly before a CHRC complaint was filed against us. In addition, the Warman v Lemire case has become widely known on the Canadian internet, and many website owners feel that the outcome of this case will have far-reaching implications in regard to their free speech, and that of their members. We feel that the presence of media and public observers would serve to increase security at the hearing. Since members of the internet community wish to see this matter dealt with in a speedy and professional manner, it is our desire to help maintain a safe and peaceful environment so that the Tribunal feels safe keeping the hearing open and public, so many sets of eyes will be on the lookout for disruptors. Thank you very much in advance for considering this request. Sincerely, Connie and Mark Fournier

We'll either die free or we die trying.

The title of today's post comes from a line in the movie "Chicken Run", when Ginger rallies the flock to board the untested escape airplane immediately, before the farmer can put the birds in his newly repaired "pie making" machine.

While Chicken Run is a humorous spoof of classic WWII prison camp movies, the fundamental message of striving against all odds to preserve life and liberty shines through quite clearly. Yet when we look around us what do we see? The vast majority of our population sits idle, content to watch "American Idol" or discuss who gets voted off the island as if these were topics of real importance or concern. Even when something is truly compelling or important, it is either dismissed with a sound bite, twisted for partisan advantage or both. One only has to look at the reportage of Afghanistan in the Canadian media to understand. The news reporters are always sure to insert the number of Canadian dead, without really attempting to say why they died or what was so important that their friends and comrades willingly continue to serve under conditions of extreme peril.

Even within Canada, we need to step up to the plate. Many readers in the Blogosphere (and increasingly in the media) are now aware of the heroic efforts of Ezra Levant, Connie and Mark Fournier and Mark Steyn to fight for our rights to freedom of speech and expression, but seriously, what have you, the reader done to help them? A small donation to offset their legal expenses? Letters of support to your local newspaper? A message to your elected officials that these star chambers are not on in a free and democratic society?

The fight to maintain our rights and liberties is ongoing. The service and sacrifice of the men and women of our armed forces or brave individuals like Ezra, Connie or Mark maintain liberty for this generation, our sons and daughters will have to be prepared to continue the fight for their children, and so on down the line. Even when the odds are overwhelmingly against us, as honorable people there is really no other way to go:

Ginger: Listen. We'll either die free chickens or we die trying.
Babs: Are those the only choices?

Yes, they are the only choices

Building a Cult: Destroying an Ideal

The only thing more disturbing than a reversal of the separation of church and state is the creation of a church of the state.

I'm reminded of other cults of personality, from the damaging though benign to the murderous and destructive to the ruthlessly lethal.

An Inconsistent Truth

So, it’s early March in Ontario…

Gore and the Suzuki deserve a throat punch each for getting my hopes up that I’d be sipping Pina Colada’s and watching the collapse of civilization from the porch of my Ottawa oceanfront home by now.

Conservatism is Dead; Long Live Conservatism?

An essay by Selwyn Duke caught my attention, asking if "Conservatism" as a movement is dead. How you define "Conservatism" will make a difference to the conclusions you draw.

If you see "Conservatism" as a holding action against the onslaught of "Progressive" ideas, then conservatism is indeed doomed. On the other hand, if conservatism is a set of principles that you hold to and use to inform your actions, then conservatism can grow and thrive. The irony, of course, is that this version of conservatism was called Liberalism in the 18th century, the classical political philosophy of Locke and Burke (among others).

Unfortunately, far too many of today's "Conservatives" are of the first sort, and even when they get into power, are unable to do more than rehash "progressive" legislation at a somewhat slower rate. How else would you explain the recent federal budgets in Canada and the United States?

Principled conservatives have some difficult choices to make. Trying to gain control of the party machinery within current parties would be one route to take, but be ready for a ferocious fight against the party insiders who benefit from the status quo. Joining political movements which represent your (our) political philosophy is another route to take, but since they are currently small and disorganized, prepare to do lots of heavy lifting to craft them into viable political parties capable of electing candidates. This isn't impossible, look at the Alberta Wild Rose Alliance, or the Green Party on the Left, although like our mission in Afghanistan, this will be an effort that will take decades to come to fruition.

Racing to the Bottom

The level of political discourse has been sinking in the last decade or so to the level of schoolyard taunts and bullying, not only in our own House of Commons, but almost anywhere you care to look. From the American administration or Houses of Congress to your local municipality, civil discourse, much less thoughtful discussion of the issues, is a rarity.

My take on this is the stakes are now so high due to the ever expanding reach and influence of government power. To take one example, the Paul Martin government gave a $4 billion dollar ministry to Belinda Stronich for crossing the aisle, and another 4.5 billion in the budget to the NDP party (abruptly canceling long planned business tax cuts). In return, they stayed in power a bit longer, controlling hundreds of billions of dollars worth of spending, vast areas of the economy and maintaining their personal perques as well. Not a bad return for an 8.5 billion dollar "investment".

I don't see any party or person as being immune to this level of temptation. Conservatism (Classical Liberalism) attempts to solve this through strict boundaries and limitations of government power, and alternative measures such as term limits could also be used to reduce the problem, but clever people always find ways to overcome these limitations. The solution on the Left goes all the way back to Plato's Philosopher Kings, with the idea some sort of elite will be able to efficiently control all resources and power due to some sort of innate superiority of thought, ethics or will.

Given human nature, this problem will always be with us. Readers of this blog can take matters into their own hands by becoming politically active and doing all they can to limit the powers and activites of governments at all levels. Speaking up, writing letters, starting petitions, supporting candidates (or opposing them) or even stepping up to the plate yourself to run for political office are all options, and far more effective than sitting around and complaining at home.

An Inconsistent Truth

"Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news. "

Ignore the chart or you too shall find yourself at the mercy of at least one failed politician and an inconsequential fruit-fly scientist

Burn the Heretic! Burn Him!!!!

Capitalism Contravened...

They made it.
They researched it.
They paid for it.
They designed it.
They marketed it.
They distribute it.

But apparently others deserve to be allowed to profit from it.

An Inconsistent Truth

"And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last
fall had melted to its "lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records
only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological
evidence of much greater melts in the past.

The ice is back.

Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in
Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only
recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time
last year."

The Polar Bear cull will begin in the spring.

Un-Fairtrade

"But Café Britt is not welcome on the Fairtrade scheme. Most of Café Britt's farmers are self-employed small businesspeople who own the land they farm. This is wholly unacceptable to the rigid ideologues at FLO International, Fairtrade's international certifiers, who will only accredit the farmers if they give up their small business status and join together into a co-operative. "It's like outlawing private enterprise," says Dan Cox, former head of the Speciality Coffee Association of America. ..."

Come again?

That's not fair trade that's collectivism/communism dressed up as social responsibility... never mind. Some things really don't change.

Thanks to Samizdata, read the whole article at the Telegraph

How Come Some Smart People are so Dumb?

Now I'm not an Economist, nor am I a fruit fly scientist but if the Government charges corporations billions of dollars in Carbon Taxes aren't the corporations just going to turn around and make consumers pay for it?

Yes, yes they are.

Perhaps if someone took the time to explain the economy to Dr. Suzuki in terms he might understand, like, oh, I don't know, perhaps in terms of an ecosystem with complex interrelationships between all the individual parts, then maybe, just maybe, he'd shut his cake-hole for long enough to understand that you can not severely damage one part of the system without suffering the consequences elsewhere.

.